Use of a Progress Monitoring System to Enable Teachers to Differentiate Mathematics Instruction
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve (2007). Journal of Applied School Psychology, v24 n1 p1-28. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ783511
-
examining2,006Students, grades3-6
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Primary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 Accelerated Math® .
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample (NCE);
|
61.08 |
54.96 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Gifted and talented;
|
82.07 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
686.52 |
665.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
62.46 |
57.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample (Scale);
|
699.55 |
674.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 0% Black 3% Native American 0% Other or unknown 68% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 47 schools in 24 states. The eligible sample of students which is reviewed in this report includes grades 3–6. The study did not report the number of schools in this sample.15 The study occurred in the second semester of the 2001–02 school year.
Study sample
Among all students in the analytic sample in grades 3–6, approximately 17% qualified for free or reduced-price meals, 49% were female, 5% were learning disabled or in special education, and 3% were English language learners.
Intervention Group
Intervention students used Accelerated Math® as a supplement to the existing math curriculum in the second semester of the school year (between January and May). The authors did not specify which version of Accelerated Math® was used.
Comparison Group
Comparison students were taught using their school’s existing math curriculum. The authors did not describe or name the curriculum.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in a 1-day training session conducted by Renaissance Learning. The training was designed to familiarize teachers with Accelerated Math® and to guide them in integrating it into the curriculum and instruction. Of the 68 Accelerated Math® teachers in the full sample of grades 3–10, 66 attended the training. Teachers faxed weekly reports generated by Accelerated Math® to Renaissance Learning which were used by the publisher to assess integrity of implementation. Analyses of these reports were used to guide phone consultations with teachers to support implementation during the school year. The study does not indicate how often these consultations occurred or whether all intervention group teachers participated.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Renaissance Learning. (2003). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Madison, WI: Author.
-
Ysseldyke, Jim; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Improve Mathematics Skills for Students in Title I Programs. Preventing School Failure, v48 n4 p10-14.
-
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
-
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Instruction of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, v27 n4 p293-319.
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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 Accelerated Math® .
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Additional Sources
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.
-
Renaissance Learning. (2003). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Madison, WI: Author.
-
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
-
Ysseldyke, Jim; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Improve Mathematics Skills for Students in Title I Programs. Preventing School Failure, v48 n4 p10-14.
-
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Instruction of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, v27 n4 p293-319.
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).