Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Impacts of an Early Childhood Mathematics and Science Intervention on Teaching Practices and Child Outcomes
Whittaker, Jessica V.; Kinzie, Mable B.; Vitiello, Virginia; DeCoster, Jamie; Mulcahy, Christina; Barton, Emily A. (2020). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v13 n2 p177-212. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1254361
-
examining1,007Students, gradePK
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2020
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Rating Scale - Math |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.16 |
4.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Short Tools for Early Assessment in Mathematics (MTP-STEAM) |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 1);
|
16.84 |
16.99 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Academic Rating Scale - Math |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 2);
|
4.36 |
4.12 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Academic Rating Scale - Math |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 1);
|
4.06 |
4.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Rating Scale - Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.97 |
3.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
LENS on Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.86 |
1.79 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Academic Rating Scale - Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 2);
|
4.17 |
3.97 |
Yes |
|
||
|
LENS on Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 2);
|
1.85 |
1.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
LENS on Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 1);
|
1.79 |
1.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Rating Scale - Science |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 1);
|
3.87 |
3.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number Sense and Place Value |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 1);
|
30.58 |
30.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number Sense and Place Value |
MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Year 2);
|
30.38 |
30.48 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
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, South
-
Race Black 29% Other or unknown 17% White 53%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in preschool classrooms located in two urban areas, one located in the Midwest and one located in the Southeast, over a two year period. The first year of the study included 126 preschool classrooms and the second year of the study included 69 preschool classrooms.
Study sample
The analytic sample included between 612 and 687 preschool children in year 1 and between 350 and 383 preschool children in year 2. All children in the analytic sample were 4 years old, English-speaking, and eligible for kindergarten in the following year. No children had an individualized education plan. Demographic data were not presented separately for each study year. Of the 1,371 children who took at least one preintervention or postintervention assessment, 50.0 percent were male, 53.4 percent were white, 29.2 percent were Black, and 17.4 percent were another race. Demographic data were not presented for the teachers remaining in the analytic sample at the time of the postintervention assessments in the Spring of each year. Of the 140 teachers who were in the Fall of Year 1 analytic sample, 2.1 percent were male, 92.1 percent were female, and the remaining 5.7 percent did not report their gender. In addition, 68.6 percent were white, 18.6 percent were Black, and 12.9 percent were another race. The average number of years of education and teaching experience were 15.35 and 6.92 years, respectively.
Intervention Group
Preschool children in the intervention group received mathematics and science instruction using the MyTeachingPartner-Math/Science (MTP-M/S) curricula. The MTP-M/S curricula included two mathematics and two science activities for each week of the 33 week school year, for 132 activities in total. Each activity lasted 15-20 minutes and was conducted in a large or small group. The activities were designed to be student-centered and used a structured inquiry approach. The mathematics activities covered number sense, operations, geometry, and measurement topics while the science activities covered life science, earth science, and physical science topics. The MTP-M/S curricula was designed to align with national and state standards. Teachers introduced one investigation activity, an extension of one of the weekly mathematics or science activities, at the beginning of each week. Children completed the investigation activity independently throughout the week. Parents of children in the intervention group received a monthly newsletter with suggested activities to do with their children in support of the MTP-M/S curricula objectives.
Comparison Group
Preschool children in the comparison group received business-as-usual mathematics and science instruction.
Support for implementation
Teachers in both conditions were invited to attend professional development workshops. Teachers in the MTP-M/S curricula intervention group attended an introductory workshop prior to the start of the intervention and eight additional workshops during the course of the intervention (5 in the first year of implementation and 3 in the second year of implementation). The workshops were designed to align their teaching practices with the MTP-M/S curricula and encourage teachers to use the professional development supports available through the intervention. Each workshop lasted 2.5 hours. Teachers in the business-as-usual comparison group were invited to attend the same number of professional development workshops as the MTP-M/S intervention group teachers, however, the workshop topics focused on social-emotional development. Teachers in the MTP-M/S curricula intervention group also received within activity and online professional development support. The within activity support consisted of narrative text with teaching tips for each activity, reflection questions, examples of how to model mathematical and scientific language, and proposed adaptations for children with differing abilities. The online support consisted of 130 video demonstrations showcasing high quality and high fidelity implementations of MTP-M/S. The video demonstrations were each between 3 to 5 minutes in length. Teachers in both groups received up to $400 for each year in which they participated in the study ($175 each year for their data collection efforts and $25 for each month in which they submitted videos).
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).