A Synthesis of Mathematics Interventions for High School Students With Mathematics Difficulties

Payne and colleagues scanned every high-school math intervention study they could find. They kept only papers that tested an explicit teaching strategy with teens who struggle in math. The final pile held 21 studies.

The team did not run new lessons. They mapped what others already tried and scored each study as positive, null, or mixed.

Fifteen of the 21 studies showed positive results. Four found no clear benefit. Two had mixed outcomes.

The same three tools popped up again and again: direct explanation, pictures or graphs, and some form of tech delivery. Yet the authors warn the pile is still small.

Stocker et al. (2019) looked only at fluency work and also praised explicit goals, but they insisted on frequency aims like "60-80 correct digits per minute." Payne’s wider lens shows many studies never set such precise aims. The views do not clash; Payne simply widened the net.

Howard et al. (2019) showed metacognitive prompts inside computer lessons helped autistic teens. Their single positive case fits Payne’s theme of tech plus explicit cues.

Yakubova et al. (2015) taught fractions with point-of-view videos to three autistic students. Payne counts this as one positive dot on the larger map.

Ganz et al. (2009) broke word problems into four overt steps. Payne labels this "precurrent behavior," a tactic that re-appears in several reviewed papers.

If you coach high-school math, you now have a short list that repeats across studies: tell them clearly, show a picture, let the device drill, and set a visible goal. You can fold these pieces into one lesson tomorrow. Because evidence is thin, keep data on every student so your class adds to the pile instead of guessing.