Evaluating the Efficacy of a Learning Trajectory for Early Shape Composition [Learning trajectories-based instruction vs. instruction at children’s target level without scaffolding]
Clements, Douglas H.; Sarama, Julie; Baroody, Arthur J.; Joswick, Candace; Wolfe, Christopher B. (2019). American Educational Research Journal, v56 n6 p2509-2530. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1234710
-
examining145Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Learning Trajectory (LT) based instruction)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Research Based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA short form) |
Learning Trajectory (LT) based instruction vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.38 |
12.62 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
Race Asian 7% Black 14% Other or unknown 18% Pacific Islander 3% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a large public school district that serves a racially and ethnically diverse student population.
Study sample
Children were on average 4.62 years old. Roughly 57% of children were male. Fifty-eight percent of children were Caucasian, 14% African American, 7% Asian, 3% Indian/Pacific Islander, and 18% other/not reported. Twelve percent of children were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
Children in the intervention condition received instruction on shape composition based on learning trajectories (LT). LTs are a sequence of lessons on a subject that progress in “levels” based on students’ understanding (in this case, children’s mental actions-on-objects for shape composition). The authors of this study developed an elaborated, scripted instructional unit on shape composition that incorporated a variety of puzzles. The children were offered puzzles and scaffolding for the level directly following the level at which they showed competency.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was called the Skip-Level group. These students were also offered a variety of puzzles. Teachers presumably used direct instruction on the target level, without using an LT progression or scaffolding.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were trained to deliver the activities to the groups of students and administer the measures.
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).