Math at home adds up to achievement in school.
Berkowitz, T., Schaeffer, M. W., Maloney, E. A., Peterson, L., Gregor, C., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Science, 350(6257), 196–198. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7427.
-
examining422Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for Bedtime Learning Together)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Bedtime Learning Together vs. Bedtime Learning Together |
1 Day |
Full sample of 1st grade students whose parents responded to the math anxiety survey questions;
|
474.06 |
472.61 |
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.
-
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
- v
- x
- w
- y
Illinois
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study sample was recruited within 22 Chicago-area schools with first-grade classrooms. The authors recruited public, private, and parochial schools. However, the location of the implementation of the intervention took place outside of school in students’ homes (SC1: p.2).
Study sample
The full sample of was made up of 49 percent male students and 51 percent female students. The sample consisted primarily of children living in households making more than $50,000 per year, with 69 percent of the sample coming from middle- to upper-middle class families. The children in the sample ranged in age from 53 to 92 months, with an average age of 78.5 months. (SC1: p. 2 of Berkowitz supplementary materials).
Intervention Group
The intervention is a math iPad application used by parents with their children at home in the evenings. Parents were given an iPad mini with the math version of the intervention app (Bedtime Learning Together) loaded on it. The math version is based on “Bedtime Math”, which is an application created by the Overdeck Family Foundation. Some changes were made to the original “Bedtime Math” application, including updating the years referenced in the app questions and ensuring that the numbers in the questions were developmentally appropriate for 1st graders. Families were asked to use the iPad app with their children before bedtime, ideally 4 times per week. When the families used the app, each passage came with questions that covered counting skills, arithmetic, fractions, geometry, and patterns. The questions aligned with the Common Core Curriculum. (SC1: pp.6-7 of Berkowitz supplementary materials)
Comparison Group
The comparison group received the same iPad minis but with a reading version of Bedtime Learning Together loaded on them instead of a math version (SC1: pp.6-7 of Berkowitz supplementary materials).
Support for implementation
The authors do not describe any additional support beyond the provision of the iPad minis with the preloaded applications.
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.
-
Michael C. F. (March 11, 2016). Comment on "Math at home adds up to achievement in school". Science 351 (6278), 1161. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aad8555.
-
Berkowitz, T., Schaeffer, M. W., Rozek, C. S., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., Beilock, S. L. (March 11, 2016). Response to Comment on "Math at home adds up to achievement in school". Science 351 (1161). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad8555?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed.
-
Marjorie W. Schaeffer, Christopher S. Rozek, Talia Berkowitz, Susan C. Levine, and Sian L. Beilock. (October 4, 2018). Disassociating the Relation Between Parents’ Math Anxiety and Children’s Math Achievement: Long-Term Effects of a Math App Intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000490.
Quick Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- Quick Review
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Review in progress
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).