Suppes, Patrick; Holland, Paul W.; Hu, Yuanan; Vu, Minh-thien (2013). Educational Assessment, v18 n3 p162-181. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1023953
Reviewed: February 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Mathematics Standards Tests |
Stanford University's Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) vs. Worksheets from a textbook or Renaissance Learning Accelerated Mathematics |
0 Days |
Grade: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Mathematics Standards Tests |
Stanford University's Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) vs. Worksheets from a textbook or Renaissance Learning Accelerated Mathematics |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in eight Title I elementary schools, serving grades K-5, across three districts in California. All schools were within a 50-mile radius of Stanford University. The study was conducted during the 2006-2007 school year.
All schools that participated in the study were Title I schools. The study does not present additional sample characteristics.
The Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) was a technology-driven, computer-managed individualization of the math curriculum. For this study, the EPGY curriculum was revised for a non-gifted student population and provided in addition to the standard math curriculum delivered by the classroom teacher. The revised EPGY curriculum omitted more difficult, optional parts of the curriculum and had some adjustment in the learning parameters for individual student motion in the course. EPGY students spent 20 minutes per day, 5 days per week in a computer lab under the supervision of a classroom teacher and an EPGY School Site Instructor to work on an EPGY technology-driven version of their math curriculum. Students participated in EPGY for approximately one school year (school year 2006-2007).
Students in the comparison group remained in their classrooms (that is, were not pulled out to computer labs) and received an alternative intervention consisting of seatwork that was either worksheets from adopted textbooks or worksheets from the Renaissance Learning Accelerated Mathematics product, which was widely used across the study districts. Students in the comparison group also received the standard math instruction delivered by their classroom teachers.
All EPGY students worked under the supervision of a classroom teacher and an EPGY School Site Instructor.
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