An evaluation of the second edition of UCSMP Transition Mathematics.
Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., Witonksy, D., Usiskin, Z., & Kealey, G. (2005). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. http://s3.amazonaws.com/ucsmp/research_reports/tm_second_edition_evaluation_report.pdf .
-
examining91Students, grades7-9
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math Intervention Report - Primary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2021
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High School Subject Test: General Mathematics |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
56.61 |
58.50 |
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: 47%
Male: 53% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Other or unknown 91% White 9%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three schools in three states in the southeastern, midwestern, and western United States. Two schools were in urban settings, and one was in a rural setting. No other information on the school settings was reported.
Study sample
The study sample included students in grades 7 to 9 across three schools. Eligible students in grade 7 were in the 50th to 90th percentile based on national percentile rankings of general mathematics. Eligible students in grade 8 were in the 30th to 70th percentile, and eligible students in grade 9 were in the 15th to 50th percentile. Among students in the study sample, 47% were female. Across all students at one study school, approximately 40% to 50% of the students were from low-income households and 45% of the students were non-White. The study does not provide information on socioeconomic status or race for students in the second or third schools, nor does it provide any other student characteristics.
Intervention Group
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) is a core mathematics curriculum that includes materials and a routinized instructional approach with an option for teacher training. The curriculum uses an inquiry-based approach with a focus on active learning where students frequently engage in hands-on activities and small-group activities. The intervention group used the UCSMP Transition Mathematics (second edition, field trial edition) in pre-algebra classes for 45 minutes per day, on average, for the entire school year. Teachers spent an average of 12 to 20 days on each chapter, and the median number of chapters covered was 11 of the 13 chapters. Teachers reported using small groups and project work as part of their instructional approach. Students at two of the study schools had access to graphing or non-graphing calculators. At the third study school, the authors indicated 67% of students reported using calculators at least twice a week. Approximately 65% of students reported spending 16 to 45 minutes per day on homework, and most students reported needing some help with their homework.
Comparison Group
The comparison group engaged in their business-as-usual instruction and used non-UCSMP curricula. The curricula covered computational and applied arithmetic concepts. Two schools included instruction on algebraic applications and one school included basic geometry. Students worked individually and in groups and worked on projects as part of the regular curriculum. Students had access to graphing or non-graphing calculators. Teachers implemented math instruction for 45 minutes per day on average for the full school year.
Support for implementation
UCSMP teachers did not receive any formal training or professional development to implement the curriculum. Teachers met with the curriculum developers in person in Chicago twice—once in the fall and once in the spring. The focus of these meetings was to provide feedback to the developers on the curriculum materials, and teachers could raise issues and get feedback from developers or other teachers who might have helped their curriculum implementation. Instead of formal training, the University of Chicago provided teachers written guidance and sections from the second-edition textbook at three different points in time. UCSMP provided teachers chapters 1–4 at the beginning of the school year, chapters 5–8 in November, and chapters 9–13 in early winter. In addition, for the purposes of supporting implementation during the study, teachers received lesson notes and answers to frequently asked questions throughout the school year. This process of sharing written guidance and notes was done to incorporate ongoing refinements to the UCSMP curriculum over the course of the study in preparation for the release of the commercial version of UCSMP Transition Mathematics (second edition). Small modifications to the curriculum included adding in-class activities pertaining to upcoming lessons and reordering the sequence of certain lessons.
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Multiple Courses Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Multiple Courses.
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.University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Geometry Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Geometry.
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.University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Advanced Algebra Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Advanced Algebra.
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.University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry.
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.University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Precalculus and Discrete Mathematics Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Precalculus and Discrete 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.University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra.
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.Transition Mathematics Intervention Report - Middle School Math
Review Details
Reviewed: March 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 Transition Mathematics.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Geometry Readiness |
Transition Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7-9;
|
49.20 |
39.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Problem-Solving and Understanding |
Transition Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7-9;
|
4.02 |
2.96 |
No |
-- | |
|
Algebra Readiness |
Transition Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7-9;
|
41.90 |
39.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
High School Subject Test: General Mathematics |
Transition Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7-9;
|
52.70 |
58.50 |
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: 47%
Male: 53% -
Rural, 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
Midwest, South, West
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).