References
Meets WWC evidence standards
Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R. (2009). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings from first graders in 39 schools (NCEE 2009-4052). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2006). 2005 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Math randomized control trial: Final report. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Additional source:
Resendez, M., & Sridharan, S. (2006). Technical report: A study on the effectiveness of the 2005 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Math program. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Resendez, M., & Manley, M. A. (2005). Final report: A study on the effectiveness of the 2004 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Math program. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Additional source:
Resendez, M., & Sridharan, S. (2005). Technical report: A study on the effectiveness of the 2004 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Math program. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Studies that fall outside the Elementary School Math review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
Cambium Learning, Inc. (2006). An evaluation of Voyages mathematics, Fairview public schools 2005–2006: Technical report. Natick, MA: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Cummins-Colburn, B. J. L. (2007). Differences between state-adopted textbooks and student outcomes on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills examination (Doctoral dissertation, Touro University International). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06A), 168–2299. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Gatti, G. G. (2004). Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Math national effect size study. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Jitendra, A. K., Deatline-Buchman, A., & Sczesniak, E. (2005). A comparative analysis of third-grade mathematics textbooks before and after the 2000 NCTM standards. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 47–62. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Klein, D. (2000). High achievement in mathematics: Lessons from three Los Angeles elementary schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Simpson, N. (2001). Scott Foresman California Mathematics validation study pretest–posttest results. Sacramento, CA: Pearson Scott Foresman. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2007). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. The Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/elem_math_Feb_9_2007.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Additional source:
Effective programs for elementary mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Educator’s summary. (2009). Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/elem_math_Mar_11_2009_sum.pdf.
Triantos, L. M. (2005). The aftermath of implementing a standards-based curriculum in a K–8 district: Is there a correlation between hands-on instruction and math scores? Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
WESTAT. (2003). Analysis of field testing for Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics 2004. Rockville, MD: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.