WWC review of this study

Effect of Technology-Enhanced Continuous Progress Monitoring on Math Achievement

Ysseldyke, Jim; Bolt, Daniel M. (2007). School Psychology Review, v36 n3 p453-467. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ788347

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    700
     Students
    , grades
    2-8

Reviewed: December 2017

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

STAR Math Assessment

Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
587 students

50.08

44.72

No

--

Terra Nova Math

Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
700 students

46.57

45.43

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas
  • Race
    Asian
    1%
    Black
    25%
    Native American
    1%
    Other or unknown
    8%
    White
    25%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    48%

Setting

The study includes five schools in four southern states (Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas) in grades 2–5. The study occurred in the 2003–04 school year.

Study sample

Among all students at the time of random assignment, approximately 49% were female, 48% were Hispanic, 25% were African-American, 25% were White, and less than 1% were Asian or Native American.

Intervention Group

Intervention students were taught using Accelerated Math® as a supplement to the existing math curriculum for the entire school year. The study does not describe how the program was used other than to note that teachers were assigned to use Accelerated Math® with their regular math curriculum. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the intervention group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 2–5 students in the intervention group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math®. The authors conducted an exploratory analyses to determine if certain types of students (for example, based on gender, ability, or race/ethnicity) were excluded and did not find systematic differences between those students participating and not participating. The study did not specify which edition or version of Accelerated Math® was used.

Comparison Group

Comparison students used their schools’ existing math curriculum, which was Harcourt Math or Silver Burdett Math in Alabama, Houghton Mifflin Math Central in Florida and South Carolina, and Sharon Wells Math or Harcourt Math in Texas.

Support for implementation

Intervention teachers received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning Math Consultant to help them implement Accelerated Math® in their classrooms. This support included help on the use of the software’s progress monitoring features, administration of the STAR Math test, and use of the test results to inform student placement. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support through Renaissance Learning’s toll-free number.

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.

  • Bolt, Daniel M.; Ysseldyke, Jim; Patterson, Michael J. (2010). Students, Teachers, and Schools as Sources of Variability, Integrity, and Sustainability in Implementing Progress Monitoring. School Psychology Review, v39 n4 p612-630.

  • Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.

Reviewed: July 2017



Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

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.

  • Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.

  • Bolt, Daniel M.; Ysseldyke, Jim; Patterson, Michael J. (2010). Students, Teachers, and Schools as Sources of Variability, Integrity, and Sustainability in Implementing Progress Monitoring. School Psychology Review, v39 n4 p612-630.

Reviewed: September 2010

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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

Posttest

Grades 2-5;
587 students

47.12

44.72

No

--

Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores

Accelerated Math® vs. Business as Usual

Posttest

Grades 2-5;
700 students

46.59

45.43

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 51%
    Male: 49%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas
  • Race
    Asian
    1%
    Black
    28%
    White
    24%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    38%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    62%

Setting

The elementary school sample analyzed here comprises five schools in four states: Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas.

Study sample

The initial study sample included 3,309 students from 133 classrooms in nine schools, representing eight school districts in eight states. Sample students were in grades 2–8 during the 2003–04 school year. In the initial study sample, 38% of the students were Hispanic, 28% were African-American, 24% were Caucasian, 1% were Asian, 0% were Native American, and 8% were not specified. The baseline sample for grades 2–5 was 896 students (441 treatment and 455 control) in 40 classrooms (20 treatment and 20 control). The results here are drawn from the test-takers in the 40 elementary school classrooms included in the analysis—587 students took the STAR Math test (315 treatment, 272 control) and 700 took the Terra Nova test (355 treatment, 345 control). Postattrition treatment and control groups were equivalent on pretests at baseline.

Intervention Group

Students were taught by teachers using the Accelerated Math™ program during the 2003–04 school year. Teachers assigned to the treatment group were asked to use Accelerated Math™ with their regular math curriculum. The existing curricula included: Harcourt Math or Silver Burdett Math in Alabama, Houghton Mifflin Math Central in Florida and South Carolina, and Sharon Wells Math or Harcourt Math in Texas. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the initial treatment group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 2–5 students in the treatment group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math™.

Comparison Group

Students in the control group were taught using the same set of math curricula as the treatment group, but without the addition of Accelerated Math™.

Outcome descriptions

Participating students were pretested in October 2003 and posttested in May 2004 using two nationally normed, standardized tests (STAR Math and Terra Nova) for math achievement. Students in the treatment and control groups were compared using a linear regression analysis in which posttest scores were regressed on pretest scores. In the paper, the authors include school level dummies and interactions between the school and the treatment group in their analysis of outcomes for students in grades 2–8. The results presented in this report related to students in grades 2–5 (provided to the WWC by the author) include only controls for pretests. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.

Support for implementation

Teachers in the intervention group were trained to use Accelerated Math™. During the school year, teachers using Accelerated Math™ received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning math consultant, who guided teachers on how to improve their use of the program. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support.

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.

  • Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.

Reviewed: September 2008

At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

2004 STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores

Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grades 6-8;
792 students

48.11

44.45

Yes

 
 
8

2004 Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores

Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grades 6-8;
851 students

46.89

48.17

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 51%
    Male: 49%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina
  • Race
    Asian
    1%
    Black
    28%
    Other or unknown
    8%
    White
    24%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    38%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    62%

Setting

The study took place in eight schools in seven districts in seven states: Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and two schools in Texas. The middle school sample analyzed here comprises three schools in Michigan, Mississippi, and North Carolina.

Study sample

The initial study sample included 3,309 students in grades 2–8 during the 2003/04 school year from 133 classrooms in nine schools, representing eight school districts in eight states. In the initial study sample 1% of the students were Asian, 28% African-American, 38% Hispanic, 0% Native American, 24% White, and 8% not specified. This review focuses on the middle school sample, which initially included 1,823 grade 6–8 students (1,010 treatment and 813 control) in 73 classrooms (41 treatment and 32 control). Demographic data on the middle school students could not be culled from the original study. Middle school classrooms dropped from the analysis include: 7 special education or enrichment treatment classrooms taught by teachers who had access to, but did not receive training in, Accelerated Math; 4 classrooms (2 treatment, 2 control) taught by two teachers who, according to the authors, arbitrarily chose which students to treat; and 22 classrooms (11 treatment, 11 controls) in a large, urban middle school district that, according to the authors, was unable to devote sufficient time and resources to Accelerated Math. The results here are drawn from the test-takers in the 40 middle school classrooms (21 treatment, 19 control) included in the analysis—792 students took the STAR Math test (418 treatment, 374 control) and 851 took the Terra Nova test (454 treatment, 397 control). Postattrition treatment and control groups were equivalent on pretests at baseline. Because these samples reflect attrition rates greater than 20%, the WWC rated this study as meeting evidence standards with reservations.

Intervention Group

Students were taught by teachers using the Accelerated Math program during the 2003/04 school year. Accelerated Math is a progress-monitoring software program that teachers can use with their existing math curriculum. The program tracks students’ daily activities, provides immediate feedback to students and teachers, alerts teachers to students struggling with certain assignments, and monitors student achievement. Teachers assigned to the treatment group were asked to use Accelerated Math with their present math curriculum. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the initial treatment group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 6–8 students in the treatment group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math.

Comparison Group

Students in the control group were taught using existing math curricula, without Accelerated Math. The existing curricula included: Scott Foresman Middle School Math, Consumer Math, Everyday Math, Transition Math (Prentice Hall), and Chicago Math in Michigan; Glencoe in Mississippi; and Glencoe, McGraw-Hill, and the state curriculum in North Carolina. Control students had the same teachers as the intervention group students.

Outcome descriptions

Participating students were pretested in October 2003 and posttested in May 2004 using two nationally normed, standardized tests (STAR Math and Terra Nova) for math achievement. Students in the treatment and control groups were compared using a linear regression analysis in which posttest scores were regressed on pretest scores and on dummy variables related to main effects for experimental condition and school.

Support for implementation

Teachers in the intervention group were trained to use Accelerated Math. During the school year, teachers using Accelerated Math received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning math consultant, who guided teachers on how to improve their use of the program. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support.

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.

  • Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top