Clements, Douglas H.; Sarama, Julie (2007). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v38 n2 p136-163 Mar 2007. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ757034
Reviewed: June 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 Building Blocks™.
Reviewed: July 2007
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 Building Blocks for Math/SRA Real Math Building Blocks.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Building Blocks Assessment (BBA) of Early Mathematics, PreK-K: Geometry section |
Building Blocks for Math/SRA Real Math Building Blocks vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
15.75 |
10.64 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Building Blocks Assessment (BBA) of Early Mathematics, PreK-K: Number section |
Building Blocks for Math/SRA Real Math Building Blocks vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
28.26 |
17.93 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 29% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study took place in one Head Start and one state-funded preschool program in New York State.
Two teachers from a Head Start center and two teachers from a state-funded preschool program were randomly assigned to the Building Blocks for Math group or the business-as-usual comparison group. There were 77 children in the four classrooms; however, nine children left the classrooms during the course of the study. Final analysis samples ranged from 53 to 61 children. The majority of the children were from low-income families. The mean age of the children was 49.9 months, and 49% of the children were female.
The intervention group used Building Blocks for Math for 25 weeks. Building Blocks for Math includes whole- and small-group activities and games, free-choice learning centers, ideas for integrating mathematics throughout the school day, computer software (DLM Express), and books, game sheets, and manipulatives. Teachers in the state-funded preschool program implemented the curriculum with a high degree of fidelity, whereas teachers in the Head Start center implemented it with a moderate—but adequate—degree of fidelity.
Children in the business-as-usual comparison group used their typical preschool math curricula and activities over the same 25 weeks. The typical preschool math curriculum used in the Head Start comparison classroom was Creative Curriculum and math activities developed by the program. The state-funded preschool program comparison classroom continued implementing the school’s regular math curriculum.
The primary outcome domain assessed was math, and it was measured with the Number and Geometry sections of the Building Blocks Assessment of Early Mathematics, PreK–K (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Intervention teachers participated with researchers in a half-day review of curriculum materials. Project staff observed intervention teachers implementing the curriculum and were available to answer questions and discuss implementation issues with teachers as needed.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (n. d.). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summary research on the NSF-funded Building Blocks project. University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Retrieved from http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/buildingblocks/writings/ Building%20Blocks%20Research%201.pdf.
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