Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of a Research-Based Preschool Mathematics Curriculum [Building Blocks vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum)]
Clements, Douglas H.; Sarama, Julie (2008). American Educational Research Journal, v45 n2 p443-494 2008. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ795943
-
examining202Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Building Blocks™)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Mathematics Assessment (EMA) |
Building Blocks™ vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study contrast: Building Blocks (BB) vs. BAU/Control;
|
61.78 |
53.22 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 58% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 62% No FRPL 38%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in diverse preschool classrooms in New York State. Some of the early childhood programs served children from low-income households, and other programs served both low- and middle-income children. Participating programs were located in both urban and suburban areas.
Study sample
All the participating children were old enough to enroll in kindergarten the following school year. All classrooms were in an urban setting except the mixed-income classrooms which were in a suburban setting. Approximately forty-three percent of the children in the sample were White and 58% were Black, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic. Sixty-two percent of the children in the sample qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Building Blocks, a supplemental math curriculum, was implemented using small groups of four to six children and whole class instruction. The small-group sessions were usually conducted weekly for ten to fifteen minutes, and whole-group activities were typically conducted four times per week for five to fifteen minutes. Children also participated in computer activities twice per week for ten minutes per session. Letters describing reinforcing activities families could implement were sent home with children weekly. Building Blocks is organized around learning trajectories, regularly returning to topics as children progress to new developmental levels. Teacher had access to a web-based application that described children's learning trajectories and developmental progressions. The curriculum also encouraged teachers to frequently interact with children on their solution strategies, asking questions such as “How did you know?” and “Why?”
Comparison Group
Teachers in the business-as-usual (BAU) comparison classrooms continued using their school’s mathematics activities, which varied according to classroom. Five low-income classrooms used a citywide set of activities and common manipulatives; two other low-income classrooms used Creative Curriculum (Teaching Strategies, 2001); the mixed-income classrooms used homegrown materials based on state standards, three of which employed Montessori mathematics materials.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers received four days of curriculum implementation training and two-hour refresher classes once every other month. Intervention teachers also received in-class coaching (approximately sixteen hours) from teachers with experience in teaching the intervention curriculum who were trained to be coaches during the summer prior to the start of the study.
Building Blocks™ Intervention Report - Preparing Young Children for School
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2023
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 Building Blocks™.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Mathematics Assessment (EMA) |
Building Blocks™ vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.78 |
53.22 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 28 preschool classrooms in New York State. Some of the early childhood programs served children from low-income households, and other programs served both low- and middle-income children. Participating programs were located in urban and suburban areas.
Study sample
There were 14 classrooms and 101 children in each condition of the study, approximately eight children from each class. All the participating children were in preschool and intended to enroll in kindergarten the following school year. All classrooms were in an urban setting except for one classroom in a mixed income, suburban setting. The urban classrooms were from Head Start and state-funded preschool programs and were roughly 30 percent White, 47–58 percent Black, and less than 10 percent another race. The mixed-income classrooms were 70 percent White and 30 percent another race. Head Start, state-funded, and mixed-income classrooms had 97, 63, and 9 percent (respectively) of students who qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Building Blocks, a supplemental math curriculum, was implemented in small groups of 4–6 children and in whole-class instruction. The small-group sessions were usually conducted weekly for 10–15 minutes, and whole-group activities were typically conducted four times per week for 5–15 minutes. Children also participated in computer activities twice per week for 10 minutes per session. Letters describing reinforcing activities families could implement were sent home with children weekly. Building Blocks is organized around learning trajectories, regularly returning to topics as children progress to new developmental levels. Teacher had access to a web-based application that described children's learning trajectories and developmental progressions. The curriculum also encouraged teachers to frequently interact with children on their solution strategies, asking questions such as “How did you know?” and “Why?”
Comparison Group
Teachers in the business-as-usual comparison classrooms continued their school’s usual mathematics activities, which varied according to classroom. Five low-income classrooms used a set of activities and common manipulatives used in other preschools in the same city; two other low-income classrooms used Creative Curriculum (Teaching Strategies, 2001); the mixed-income classrooms used homegrown materials based on state standards, including Montessori mathematics materials.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers received 4 days of curriculum implementation training and 2-hour refresher classes once every other month. Intervention teachers also received in-class coaching (approximately 16 hours in total) from teachers with experience in teaching the intervention curriculum who were trained to be coaches during the summer prior to the start of the study.
Pre-K Mathematics Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2013
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because it uses a randomized controlled trial design that either did not generate groups using a random process or had nonrandom allocations after random assignment, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
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 Pre-K Mathematics.
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.Teaching Math to Young Children
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2013
Teaching Math to Young Children Practice Guide- 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.
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
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Suburban, Urban
-
Race Asian 3% Black 53% Other or unknown 2% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
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).