A comparison of the effects of the Accelerated Math program and the Delaware Procedural Fluency Workbook program on academic growth in grade six at X middle school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
Caputo, M. T. (2007). Wilmington University, DE.
-
examining70Students, grade6
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Primary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 Accelerated Math® .
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delaware state test: Math |
Accelerated Math® vs. Delaware Procedural Fluency Workbook Program |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
477.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Accelerated Math® vs. Delaware Procedural Fluency Workbook Program |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
221.09 |
No |
-- | |
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Delaware Procedural Fluency Workbook Program |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
744.50 |
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: 54%
Male: 46% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Delaware
-
Race Black 43% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in four “regular paced” sixth-grade math classes in a suburban middle school located in Wilmington, Delaware. The study occurred in the 2006–07 school year.
Study sample
Sample characteristics are only reported for the randomized sample. Approximately 62% of this sample qualified for free or reduced-price meals, approximately 54% were female, 43% were Black, 33% were Hispanic, and 21% were White. No students were classified as special education students or English language learners. The analytic sample included 38 Accelerated Math® students and 32 DPFW students.
Intervention Group
Intervention students used Accelerated Math® as a supplement to their class’s existing math curriculum for an entire school year. Students typically worked on pencil-and-paper math assignments generated by Accelerated Math® for the first 15–20 minutes of class each day. Accelerated Math® generated a list of problems for each student based on their prior assignment performance. In addition to the daily practice problems, teachers provided mini-review lessons and administered in-depth exercises and tests produced by Accelerated Math® as needed. The study did not specify which version of Accelerated Math® was used.
Comparison Group
Comparison students used DPFW as a supplement to their class’s existing math curriculum for an entire school year. Students typically worked on DPFW math assignments selected by the teacher for the first 15–20 minutes of class each day. Assignments were completed with pencil and paper in a workbook. All students worked on the same problems, which were posted on the board by the teacher each day. Teachers selected problems for the class to reinforce previously worked on concepts, or to complement concepts students were currently learning. Students worked individually or in groups on math problems, and students presented their solutions to problem sets in the last 5 minutes of the assigned time.
Support for implementation
According to the study author, one of the study teachers used Accelerated Math® prior to the study, while the other had not. Neither teacher had previously used DPFW. The teachers received training on each program prior to the study pretest; however, no details about the training were provided. A substitute teacher took over one teacher’s classrooms for 2 months during the study. The substitute was supported by the regular classroom teacher via daily telephone calls and weekly class visits.
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2017
- 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 Accelerated Math® .
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).