Crawford, J., & Raia, F. (1986). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City Public Schools, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department.
Reviewed: May 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Math.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Total mathematics subscore |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 8;
|
55.56 |
50.72 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics computation |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 8;
|
57.66 |
51.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Mathematics concepts |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 8;
|
53.18 |
50.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was conducted in four middle schools in eighth-grade classrooms in Oklahoma City Public Schools (OCPS). No other information was provided about the study setting. The study data were collected during the 1984–85 school year.
The study included 78 eighth-grade students (39 intervention and 39 comparison) taught by four teachers in four middle schools. Each teacher taught at least one intervention class and one comparison class. To create similar intervention and comparison groups of students based on math ability, the researchers matched each intervention group student to a comparison group student with the same teacher based on their total math scores at baseline on the California Achievement Test (CAT). When more than one student from the comparison group matched a student in the intervention group, the comparison student match was selected at random. When no student from the comparison group matched a student in the intervention group, the student in the intervention group was excluded from the sample. The study authors do not provide demographic information on the sample.
Students in the intervention group used Saxon Algebra ½, a pre-algebra math course, as their core math curriculum during the 1984–85 school year. The authors did not specify which edition of Saxon Algebra ½ was used but indicate that the 1983 copyright year was used. Further information about the level of implementation in study schools was not provided.
Students in the comparison group were taught using the district’s usual math curriculum, Scott-Foresman Mathematics (1980 copyright year). The authors do not provide details about how the comparison curriculum was implemented in study schools.
The study does not provide information on the support for implementation.
Reviewed: May 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Algebra I.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT) |
Saxon Algebra I vs. Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics |
1984-1985 |
Grade 8;
|
55.56 |
50.72 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in four middle schools in Oklahoma City Public Schools.
The study sample included 78 eighth-grade students (39 intervention and 39 comparison) taught by four teachers in four Oklahoma middle schools during the 1984–85 school year. Each teacher taught an intervention class and a comparison class. The authors did not report demographic information. To create similar intervention and comparison groups, the researchers conducted a stratified matching procedure based on pretest total math score on the California Achievement Test (CAT) at the student level, within teachers, to match a comparison student to each student in the intervention group. When more than one student from the comparison group matched a student in the intervention group, the student match was selected at random. When no student from the comparison group matched a student in the intervention group, the student in the intervention group was excluded from the sample.
Students in the intervention group were taught using the Saxon Algebra ½ (1983) textbook during the 1984–85 school year. Information about the level of implementation was not provided. The intervention was implemented by four teachers, one from each of four schools. Each of these teachers taught intervention classes and comparison classes.
Students in the comparison group were taught using the math textbook in place prior to the pilot study, Scott Foresman Mathematics (1980).
The primary outcome measure was the total math score on the CAT. Pretest data were from the year-end administration of the CAT in 1984, and posttest data came from the end-of-year test administration in 1985. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Information on teacher training was not provided.
Reviewed: May 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Geometry.
Reviewed: May 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Multiple Saxon Math Courses.
Reviewed: May 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Algebra II.
Reviewed: May 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Saxon Advanced Math.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube