The effects of the Elevate Math summer program on math achievement and algebra readiness (REL 2015-096)
Snipes, J., Huang, C.-W., Jaquet, K., & Finkelstein, N. (2015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
-
examining349Students, grade7
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2019
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Elevate Summer Math Program)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP) Algebra Readiness Test |
Elevate Summer Math Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.81 |
16.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP) Algebra Readiness Test - passed 3 or more topic areas |
Elevate Summer Math Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.00 |
12.00 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 44%
Male: 56% -
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
California
Study Details
Setting
The study took place across eight middle schools in six districts located in California. These schools were located in suburban communities and students attended the summer school program of their normal campus or a nearby campus.
Study sample
Of the 461 students who indicated their gender, 56% were male and 44% were female. Based on the math portion of the California Standards Test they completed in the prior school year, 53% of the students fell into the target range of the intervention (35% high basic and 18% low proficient). The remainder of the students either scored below the target range for the intervention (29%) or above the range (17%).
Intervention Group
Elevate Math is a math support program for students in middle school to help them succeed in math and science. The core of the program is a 75-hour summer preparatory course taught by a certified teacher, offered over a 4-week period during the summer before 8th grade. The content aligns with the Common Core State Standards in math and targets students in 7th grade who scored at the high basic level or the low proficient level on the grade 6 math California Standards Test. Students receive 19 days of four hours of blended learning classroom instruction. One hour each day is spent on Khan Academy. The program covers four math content modules: properties and operations, linear equations, ratios and multiple representations, and transformational geometry.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition received the Elevate Math intervention during the second 4-week summer session.
Support for implementation
Credentialed teachers and their college-level assistants received 40 hours of CCSS-based professional development. The first 24 hours included training on curriculum understanding and implementation, instructional strategies aligned with the standards, math practices, technology integration in the classroom, and student engagement. The next 16 hours were spent in a professional learning community setting.
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).