Good, K., Bickel, R., & Howley, C. (2006). Charlestown, WV: Edvantia, Inc.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT 9) - Math Problem Solving subtest |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Grade: 2, 3;
|
632.89 |
627.63 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 35% | |
| White | 65% |
The study was conducted in 57 schools across 16 states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms in the 2005–06 school year. No further information was provided about the study setting.
Forty schools were randomly selected from a list of schools in the United States implementing Saxon Math and invited to participate in the study; 33 schools agreed to participate. In addition, 24 comparison schools agreed to participate in the study. The comparison schools were selected based on their similarity to the intervention schools, including school size, grade-level configuration, students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, racial/ethnic make-up, whether or not they were charter schools, Title I status, geographic location, and setting (for example, urban or rural). Within each study school, one classroom in each grade from K–3 participated in the study. This review focuses on the analytic sample of students who took the Math Problem Solving subtest; this is the only sample that demonstrates baseline equivalence. This analytic sample includes a total of 745 students in grades 2 and 3 comprised of 411 intervention students in 33 schools and 334 comparison students in 24 schools. The study authors do not provide demographic information on the analytic sample, but they do provide information on all students in their study (in grades K–3). In the full sample of students, about 65% were Caucasian, about 10% were English language learners, about 5% were in special education, about 50% were male, and about 45% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Students in the intervention group used Saxon Math as their core math curriculum in grades K–3 during the 2005–06 school year. The authors did not specify the edition of Saxon Math used. The study assessed implementation fidelity and found that, in general, the Saxon curriculum was implemented as intended, with 70% of teachers routinely using Saxon Math. In the analytic sample examined in this review, most teachers implemented the majority of the lesson components as intended in grades 2 and 3. On average, teachers in second and third grade expected to complete over 95% of Saxon Math lessons by the end of the school year (actual curriculum completion was not assessed). Teachers supplemented Saxon Math with additional materials to reinforce concepts, match state standards, or provide learning extensions.
Students in the comparison group used a variety of math curricula including Harcourt Brace, Houghton Mifflin, Silver Burdett Ginn, McGraw-Hill, and Scott-Foresman. Specific details about how these curricula were implemented are not provided by the authors. As in the Saxon group, comparison group teachers supplemented their core curriculum with additional materials.
The study does not provide information on the support for implementation. However, the authors note that intervention schools were using Saxon Math prior to the study.
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.
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