Evaluation of the Computer and Team Assisted Mathematical Acceleration (CATAMA) Lab for Urban, High-Poverty, High Minority Middle Grade Students. Final Report to the Institute of Education Sciences
Balfanz, Robert; Ruby, Allen; Mac Iver, Doug. (2008). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588795
-
examining985Students, grades5-9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Computer and Team Assisted Mathematical Acceleration (CATAMA) Lab )
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (5th Edition, Form A) - Math |
Computer and Team Assisted Mathematical Acceleration (CATAMA) Lab vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
663.35 |
657.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
TerraNova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (5th Edition, Form A) - Math |
Computer and Team Assisted Mathematical Acceleration (CATAMA) Lab vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 9;
|
688.00 |
655.00 |
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
Rural, 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
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas
-
Race Asian 6% Black 30% Other or unknown 59% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 44% Not Hispanic or Latino 56% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six public schools in urban and rural settings: three middle schools and one high school in Pennsylvania, one middle school in Minnesota and one middle school in Texas. The intervention took place in a class that met 5 days per week for 45 minutes per day.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 1,090 students across all participating schools: 619 to the intervention group and 471 to the comparison group. A total of 985 students were included in study in grades 5 through 9. Approximately 55% of the students were female. Thirty percent were Black, 6% were Asian, 5% were White, and 59% did not report race. Forty-four percent were Hispanic or Latino. Students were eligible for the study if they scored between the 25th and 65th percentile on districts’ standardized math assessment in the year before the study.
Intervention Group
Students assigned to Computer and Team Assisted Mathematical Acceleration (CATAMA) Lab intervention attended a class using this program 5 days per week, 45 minutes per day, for a full semester or trimester (13–18 weeks). CATAMA is an elective course for students needing additional assistance in math while they continue taking their regular math class. Each class session included whole class instruction, individual and peer-assisted computer instruction and practice, and individual and small group tutoring. Class instruction primarily covered pre-algebra topics and was determined by the instructor based on students' remedial math needs and upcoming topics of instruction in their regular math classes.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition took an elective course such as music or art and did not attend the CATAMA Lab course.
Support for implementation
Each CATAMA Lab instructor was an experienced math teacher selected by the school. Instructors received an initial day of professional development taught by a university-based Lab facilitator. During the school year, the Lab facilitator visited the Lab once per week to help the instructor become familiar with the computer software, pair students appropriately, and either model or provide feedback on instruction.
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).