Johnson, J., & Hall, M. (2003). , Raleigh, NC: EDSTAR, Inc.
Reviewed: April 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 Houghton Mifflin Mathematics.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CA START) test: 2002 SAT9 mean scaled scores |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
592.52 |
586.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CA START) test: 2002 SAT9 mean scaled scores |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
618.04 |
615.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CA START) test: 2002 SAT9 mean scaled scores |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
636.87 |
632.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CA START) test: 2002 SAT9 mean scaled scores |
Houghton Mifflin Mathematics vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
657.34 |
654.13 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The participating school districts were located throughout California.
The participants in this study were second through fifth graders from 16 districts in California. The intervention group included 160 schools from eight districts using Houghton Mifflin Mathematics. The comparison group included 137 schools in eight different districts. The intervention group was identified by Houghton Mifflin, which provided the names of eight districts in California that began using Houghton Mifflin Mathematics in 2002. Using data from the Quality Education Database, the California Department of Education, and the American Institutes for Research, comparison districts were matched based on prior math achievement scores, student demographic characteristics, and district sizes.
The intervention group used the 2002 edition of Houghton Mifflin Mathematics and had completed their first year of implementing the curriculum during the 2001–2002 school year.
There is no information in the study about the specific math programs used in the comparison school districts, except that the schools did not use Houghton Mifflin Mathematics.
The outcome measure was the total math score on the California statewide assessment, the Standardized and Reporting (STAR) Stanford 9 test, used during the 2000–01 and 2001–02 school years. (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.) The study authors reported scores as national percentile ranks, but the WWC reports scaled scores sent by the author in response to a data request, because scaled scores are more direct indicators of performance and do not require extrapolation based on national norms.
No information is available on the training or professional development provided to the teachers in the intervention group.
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.
Johnson, J., Yanyo, L., & Hall, M. (2002). Evaluation of student math performance in California school districts using Houghton Mifflin Mathematics. Raleigh, NC: EDSTAR, Inc.
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