Large-scale evaluation of student achievement in districts using Houghton Mifflin.
EDSTAR, Inc. (2004). Raleigh-Durham, NC: Author.
-
examining128Students, grades2-5
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics Intervention Report - Elementary School Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Houghton Mifflin Mathematics.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK) 4 exam: Percent at or above proficiency |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4: New Jersey sample;
|
40.50 |
37.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
SC PACT exam: percent at or above proficiency |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 3-5: South Carolina sample;
|
34.30 |
32.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Achievement Test (CAT)/6 exam: Percent at or above proficiency |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-5: California sample;
|
36.40 |
38.70 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
- 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
California, New Jersey, South Carolina
-
Race Asian 9% Black 21% White 39% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 29% Not Hispanic or Latino 71%
Study Details
Setting
Districts were selected in various states to represent ranges in size, demographic characteristics, and student achievement. Within districts, schools were matched based on size of schools, student achievement level, school socioeconomic level, and school minority level.
Study sample
The participating 519 schools were selected from different regions of the country including the West (California), the Midwest (Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin), the Northeast (New Jersey and New York), and the Southeast (South Carolina). The grade levels evaluated varied by state: California, grades 2–5; South Carolina, grades 3–5; Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin, grade 4; Illinois, grades 3 and 5. The authors indicate that no attrition occurred in this study. Due to the confounding of the intervention effect with the effect of other district characteristics, the analysis was limited to a sample of 16 districts (eight pairs) and 212 schools in the three states that had multiple districts in the intervention and comparison groups: California, New Jersey, and South Carolina.
Intervention Group
The eight districts in the intervention group had begun using Houghton Mifflin Mathematics in 2002–03.
Comparison Group
The comparison group used one of three types of math programs: reform, traditional, or balanced. The reform programs included Everyday Math, Mathland, and Excel Math. The traditional programs included Saxon and SRA. Scott Foresman 2000, Harcourt-Brace Mathematics, and Silver Burdett comprised the balanced programs. This WWC report focuses on an analysis of a reduced sample of states and therefore includes only comparison groups with balanced (California and South Carolina) and reform (New Jersey) programs.
Outcome descriptions
The outcome measures were the state achievement tests used by each state in the study. Due to differences in state tests and state standards, results for each state were analyzed and evaluated separately. (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.) The study authors reported scores as percent of students at or above proficiency.
Support for implementation
No information is available on the training or professional development provided to the teachers in the intervention group.
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.
-
EDSTAR, Inc. (2004). Large-scale evaluation of student achievement in districts using Houghton Mifflin Mathematics: Phase two. Raleigh-Durham, NC: Author.
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).