Table 2.
Information Regarding Characteristics of Studies, Students, and Interventions
| Study | Design | Research quality | N | Gender | Grade | Risk type | SES | Content area | Description of conditions | Implementer | Group size | Total hours | Total sessions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barner et al. (2016) | RCT | Medium | 187 | NR | 2–4 | No risk | Low | Math | T: Mental Abacus C: Supplemental math training |
Othera | NR | NRb | NR |
| Beard (2003) | RCT | High | 34 | M = 17 (50%) F = 17 (50 %) |
4 | Mixedc | Low | Math | T: Integrated math and literacy curriculum C: Traditional math curriculum |
Researcher | Whole class | 27 | 27 |
| Chalip & Chalip (1978) | RCT | High | 32 | M = 16 (50%) F = 16 (50 %) |
3–4 | Mixed | NR | Literacy | T1: Co-operative learning T2: Mixed co-operative & individual learning C: Individual learning |
General education teacher | 10–11 | 5.75 | 23 |
| Colling wood & Dewey (2018) | RCT | High | 144 | NR | 4 | No risk | Mixed | Math | T: Thinking your problems away C: Control/wait list |
Otherd | NRe | 9 | 12 |
| Jansen et al. (2013) | RCT | Medium | 207 | M = 110 (53%) F = 97 (47 %) |
3–6 | Mixedf | NR | Math | T1: Math Garden Difficultg T2: Math Garden Mediumh T3: Math Garden Easyi C: BAU |
Other | Individual computer time | 3–7.5 | 18–30 |
| Kramarski et al. (2009) | RCT | Medium | 140 | M = 72 (51%) F = 68 (49 %) |
3 | Mixedj | NR | Math | T: Metacognitive self-regulation strategy C: Regular math lesson |
General education teacher | NR | 16 | 16 |
| Lysenko et al. (2016) | QED | Low | 186 | NR | 1 | No risk | NR | Math | T: ELM C: BAU |
General education teacher | NR | NR | NR |
| Mevarech (1985) | QED | Medium | 204 | NR | 3 | No risk | Low | Math | T1: Computer-assisted individualized instruction T2: Computer-assisted traditional instruction C1: Individualized instruction C2: Traditional instruction |
General education teacher | Whole class | NR | NR |
| Mevarech & Ben-Artzi (1987) | QED | Low | 245 | NR | 6 | No risk | NR | Math | T1: CAI with fixed feedback T2: CAI with adaptive feedback C: Traditional instruction with no CAI |
General education teacher | NR | NR | NR |
| Obergriesser & Stoeger (2015) | QED | Low | 24 | NR | 4 | Gifted | NR | Science | T: Text-reduction strategy intervention C: Regular instruction |
General education teacher | Whole class | 23–35 | 35 |
| Ramirez et al. (2009) | RCT | High | 58 | M = 36 (62%) F = 22 (38 %) |
3 | AR, ELLs | Low | Literacyk | T: Cuento therapy C: Drill and practice reading summer school |
Other | 9–10 | 12 | 12 |
| Schweiker-Marra & Marra (2000) | RCT | Medium | 29 | NR | 5 | AR1 | Low | Literacym | T: Prewriting C: Whole language; no writing strategies |
General education teacher | NR | NRn | NR |
| Tok (2013) | QED | Medium | 55 | M = 26 (47%) F = 29 (53%) |
6 | No risk | NR | Math | T: KWL strategy C: Traditional teaching |
General education teacher | 24 | 32 | 32 |
Note. RCT = randomized control trial; QED = quasi-experimental design; N = sample size; M = male; F = female; NR = not reported; AR = academic risk; ELLs = English language learners; T1 = Treatment 1; T2 = Treatment 2; T3 = Treatment 3; C = Comparison; C1 = Comparison 1; C2 = Comparison 2; CAI = Computer-assisted instruction; KWL = know-want-learn strategy; BAU = business as usual; ELM = Emerging literacy in mathematics.
Other specialists.
3 hr per week for 3 years.
Only two gifted students and two special education students with the remainder of the students being of average ability.
Uncertified paraprofessionals.
Small groups.
Students were selected randomly from two schools with 61% and 31% risk of falling behind academically.
60% targeted success rate.
75% targeted success rate.
90% targeted success rate.
Included lower and higher achievers.
Reading-focused intervention during mandatory remedial summer school program.
Majority performed in the lowest quartile on their state test.
Writing intervention.
2 hr daily for 6 months (estimated at 240 hr).