Progress in Mathematics ©2006: Grade 1 pre-post field test evaluation study.
Beck Evaluation & Testing Associates, Inc. (2005). Sadlier-Oxford Division, William H. Sadlier, Inc.
-
examining186Students, grade1
Progress in Mathematics Intervention Report - Elementary School Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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 Progress in Mathematics.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TerraNova Mathematics Test |
Progress in Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
40.62 |
37.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
TerraNova Mathematics Computation Test |
Progress in Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.50 |
16.80 |
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.
-
- 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
New York, Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The eight classrooms were located in four elementary schools in four school districts in the eastern United States. Three of the schools were Catholic schools, and one was a public school. One pair of classrooms (one intervention and one comparison) was located in each of the participating schools.
Study sample
The study included 186 first graders (96 students in the intervention group and 90 students in the comparison group) in eight classrooms across four schools. Within schools, classrooms were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group. For rating purposes, the sample for the analysis of the Terra Nova Mathematics Test included 186 students, and the sample for the analysis of the Terra Nova Math Computation Test included 181 students.
Intervention Group
The intervention classrooms received the pre-publication version of Progress in Mathematics © 2006 student edition materials, student workbooks, and teacher guides. The study indicated that those materials resembled as closely as possible the intended published version.
Comparison Group
The comparison classrooms used the 2000 version of Progress in Mathematics. This textbook series had been used in the participating schools for at least three years prior to the study. This intervention report regards Progress in Mathematics © 2006 as a different math program from Progress in Mathematics © 2000. The WWC team compared the textbooks of both programs and found them to differ extensively in terms of content, assessment materials, organization, and presentation. Whereas the 2000 version emphasizes written computation skills, the © 2006 version focuses on mathematical language and problem solving in addition to computation. Information received from the developer confirmed this difference between programs.
Outcome descriptions
Students were tested using the TerraNova Mathematics and Math Computation Tests (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Intervention group teachers received a pre-implementation orientation from the developer’s editorial staff. They also received ongoing editorial department support through in-person visits and by phone throughout the study. The comparison group teachers already had previous training and experience with their current textbooks.
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).