An evaluation of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project: Pre-Transition Mathematics
Thompson, D.R., and Senk, S.L. (2016). University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucsmp/research_reports/ptm_evaluation_report.pdf .
-
examining264Students, grades6-8
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UCSMP Problem-solving and Understanding Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.79 |
12.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
UCSMP Mathematics Test One |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.88 |
20.49 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
TerraNova CAT Survey 17 |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 6;
|
23.65 |
21.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
TerraNova CAT Survey 17 |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Everyday Mathematics® |
0 Days |
Grade 6;
|
23.40 |
22.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Items Common to the UCSMP Entering Mathematics Test and the UCSMP Mathematics Test One |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Transitions/Pre-transitions Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
57.06 |
56.33 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
Rural, Suburban, 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, Northeast
-
Race Asian 2% Black 4% Other or unknown 21% White 73% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven schools within four districts in rural, suburban, and urban areas in the northeastern and midwestern United States. The districts and states were not named.
Study sample
The study sample included 264 students in grades 6 to 8. Across the study sample, 51% of the students were male, 73% were White, 4% were Black, 2% were Asian, and the race of 21% of students was not specified. Thirty percent of students were Hispanic. The study does not provide information on student race for the analytic samples included in this review nor any other background characteristics for the students in the schools.
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 UCSMP’s Pre-Transition Mathematics course (field trial edition). The intervention was implemented during students’ regular math classes. The majority of UCSMP classes used the curriculum daily; some classes used it four times per week. Math instructional time in the intervention classes ranged from 225 to 400 minutes per week. Students were loaned graphing calculators that they used two to three times per week, on average.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison classes used Everyday Mathematics provided by McGraw-Hill Education, Basic Mathematics provided by Globe Fearon, Prentice Hall Mathematics: Course 1 provided by Prentice Hall, Mathematics: Applications and Concepts Course 2 provided by Glencoe, and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Math provided by Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley. Most comparison classes had math instruction five times per week; some classes offered math four times per week. Comparison classes spent 225 to 400 minutes per week on math instruction. Students were loaned graphing calculators that they used two to three times per week, on average.
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, during this study, 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, and chapters 5–12 throughout the year, based on teachers’ progress through the curriculum. 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. UCSMP worked with Texas Instruments and Casio to obtain enough calculators—either TI-84 Plus or Casio 9750—for each student and loaned the calculators to study schools for in-class use. Two of the five schools also lent calculators to students for use at home.
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).