(2008). National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502153
Reviewed: January 2023
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 Pre-K Mathematics.
Reviewed: January 2023
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 Pre-K Mathematics.
Reviewed: December 2013
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 Pre-K Mathematics.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Building Blocks Shape Composition Task |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development - Primary III (TOLD-PIII): Grammatic Understanding subtest |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
9.67 |
9.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Early Reading Ability III (TERA-III) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 45% | |
| White | 18% |
| Hispanic | 23% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 77% |
The study took place in 40 Head Start and state-funded preschool classrooms in California and New York. The classrooms were from four programs in California and two programs in New York.
The study, conducted during the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years, included an intervention group implementing Pre-K Mathematics with DLM Early Childhood Express Math software and a comparison group. In the 2002–03 school year (the study’s pilot year), teachers who volunteered to participate in the study were blocked by program type and randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a comparison group except for two pairs of classrooms, where randomization was conducted within the pair. In the study’s evaluation year (2003–04), 33 of the 40 teachers were retained, and seven teachers were added using processes that were not consistent with the original random assignment design. In one site, three replacement classrooms were randomly selected, but the probability of selection to the intervention group was 66%, higher than the original 50% probability at the start of the study. In the other site, three teachers were nonrandomly placed into classrooms that were originally randomly assigned to intervention or comparison groups, and another teacher was randomly selected from among volunteers to fill an open teaching position in a study classroom. This resulted in a sample of 40 teachers (20 intervention, 20 comparison) in the 2003–04 school year. Thus, for most of the classrooms, the intervention condition had been in place for a full year when the evaluation year started. After parental consent was obtained, the sample included 316 children at baseline; 297 children were included in the analytic sample (148 intervention, 149 comparison). Baseline equivalence between the analytic sample of intervention and comparison children was established based on baseline outcome measures data provided by the study authors. At baseline, children in the study classrooms averaged 4.3 years of age; 48% were male; 45% were African American, 23% were Hispanic, and 18% were Caucasian. Ten percent of the children were identified as having a disability.
Teachers conducted mathematics activities from Pre-K Mathematics twice a week with groups of four to six children for approximately 20 minutes per group. During each classroom session, teachers completed Assessment Record Sheets that were tied to the mathematics activity in that session. Twenty-nine classroom activities were completed, and teachers sent 19 home activities and materials for children to complete at home. Materials for home mathematics activities were sent home every 1 to 2 weeks. Pre-K Mathematics was supplemented with the DLM Early Childhood Express Math software, which included 26 numerical, quantitative, geometric, and spatial activities. The software program provided individualized mathematics instructional activities approximately twice a week. The intervention took place over 36 weeks. In addition, teachers used a pre-existing general curriculum in their classrooms (curricula included The Creative Curriculum®, High/Scope, Montessori, or specialized literacy curricula and curricula developed by local teachers and school districts).
The business-as-usual comparison group participated in the curriculum used in their programs, such as The Creative Curriculum®, High/Scope, Montessori, or specialized literacy curricula and curricula developed by local teachers and school districts.
The outcome domains of oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math were assessed with standardized measures. Oral language was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT-III) and the Grammatic Understanding subtest of the TOLD-P:3. Print knowledge was assessed with the TERA-III and the WJ-III Letter-Word Identification and Spelling subtests. Phonological processing was assessed with the Pre- CTOPPP Elision subtest. Math was assessed with the WJ-III Applied Problems subtest, the CMA-A, and the Building Blocks Shape Composition test. The pretest assessment was conducted in the fall of the 2003–04 school year, and the posttest assessment in the spring of the same school year, when the children in the sample attended preschool. Trained research staff administered all assessments. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
During the 2002–03 school year (the evaluation year), intervention teachers participated in a 4-day training workshop. Ongoing on-site training was provided approximately twice per month. Prior to the 2003–04 school year, teachers in the intervention group received a 2-day refresher workshop. Project staff observed and rated implementation fidelity of the small group sessions once or twice a month and provided feedback to teachers.
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