DiLeo, J. (2007). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Reviewed: January 2017
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 Odyssey® Math.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment |
Odyssey® Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1583.00 |
1480.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 93% |
The study was conducted in 11 fifth-grade classrooms across four schools in a single school district in south central Pennsylvania. The study occurred in the 2005–06 school year.
At the beginning of the study, 13 fifth-grade teachers in five schools in a single school district were randomly assigned to use either Odyssey Math or Odyssey Language Arts in their classrooms. As confirmed through an author query, random assignment of the teachers occurred after students were assigned to classrooms by their principals. For this review, students in the Odyssey Math classrooms served as the intervention group, while students in the Odyssey Language Arts classrooms served as the comparison group. Two classrooms were excluded from the analysis because the school was a magnet school with a demographic composition that differed from the other schools. After excluding students with missing data, the analytic sample included four schools, seven intervention classrooms (with 125 students), and four comparison classrooms (with 82 students). Approximately 7% of the students in the analytic sample were non-White, 63% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, and 14% of students had an Individualized Education Plan.
Students in the intervention group used Odyssey Math during the 2005–06 school year as a supplement to their core mathematics curriculum, Houghton Mifflin Mathematics. Teachers were asked to use the software a minimum of 90 minutes per week, but usage levels varied across classrooms, in part because of access to technology. In two of the schools, students could only access the software during their weekly assigned time in the computer labs. In the other two schools, students had greater access to the software, as it was available during their weekly computer labs, in their classrooms via wireless laptops, and at home. At two of the schools, some students may have had access to the Odyssey software as fourth graders—the year before the study began. At least one fourth grade class in each of these two schools had the Odyssey software, but it is unclear how many students from those fourth grade classes are included in the intervention group.
Students in the comparison group used the district’s core mathematics curriculum, Houghton Mifflin Mathematics. The comparison students used the Odyssey® Language Arts software and may have used Odysse® software in other subjects, but they were not permitted to use Odyssey Math. At two of the schools, some students may have had access to the Odyssey software as fourth graders—the year before the study began. At least one fourth grade class in each of these two schools had the Odyssey software, but it is unclear how many students from those fourth grade classes are included in the comparison group.
The report does not specify how much training intervention teachers received. The district purchased teacher professional development from Compass Learning® in two of the study schools during the year prior to the study (2004–05) through an Enhancing Education Through Technology grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. During the study year (2005–06), teachers who used Odyssey® during the previous school year (2004–05) trained their colleague teachers who were using the software for the first time (in 2005–06).
Reviewed: September 2016
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.
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