Effects of progress monitoring on math performance of at-risk students (Elementary school sample).
Lambert, R., Algozzine, B., & McGee, J (2014). British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4(4) 527-540.
-
examining666Students, grades2-5
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
51.16 |
44.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
49.87 |
46.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
52.49 |
47.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Grade: 2;
|
51.36 |
47.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
52.07 |
52.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Grade: 2;
|
45.51 |
48.48 |
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
Oklahoma
-
Race White 60%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 36 elementary classrooms (grades 2–5) in three schools in Oklahoma. The study authors do not indicate in which year the study occurred.
Study sample
Among all students at the time of random assignment, approximately 76% qualified for free or reduced-price meals, approximately 51% were female, 39% were minorities, and 18% were classified as special education students.
Intervention Group
Intervention students used Accelerated Math® as a supplement to their existing curriculum, Growing with Math or Houghton Mifflin Math, for the entire school year. The authors reported that study teachers chose how to implement Accelerated Math® in their classes, and that implementation was generally consistent with the developer recommendations. Classes participated in teacher-directed lessons, and then students worked independently or in small groups on individualized math problems generated by Accelerated Math®. Teachers used performance data provided by Accelerated Math® to plan individual and small group interventions and to identify when students were ready for testing sessions to demonstrate content mastery. The study did not specify which version of Accelerated Math® was used. The study authors reported that half of intervention group classes (9 out of 18) demonstrated high fidelity to implementation of Accelerated Math®. Fidelity was measured based on the percentage of class students who were able to master objectives each week and complete problem sets correctly.
Comparison Group
Comparison students used a traditional math curriculum already in place in the schools, either Growing With Math or Houghton Mifflin Math. The authors do not report the number of classes using each text.
Support for implementation
Renaissance Learning, the developer of the intervention, provided study teachers with professional development and periodic support in implementing Accelerated Math®. Details about this support were not provided by the authors.
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.
-
Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2009). Accelerated Math evaluation report (Elementary school sample). Charlotte: Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Accelerated Math® Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: December 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.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.
-
Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2009). Accelerated Math evaluation report (Elementary school sample). Charlotte: Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
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).