Effects of early mathematics intervention for low-SES pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students: A replication study
Starkey, P., Klein, A., Clarke, B., Baker, S., & Thomas, J. (2022). Educational Research and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.2022316.
-
examining372Students, gradePK
Pre-K Mathematics Intervention Report - Preparing Young Children for School
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2023
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Pre-K Mathematics.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-Developed: Child Math Assessment (CMA) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.63 |
0.54 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Third Edition, (TEMA-3) |
Pre-K Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.24 |
12.19 |
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.
-
52% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Rural
-
- 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
California
-
Race Black 3% Other or unknown 90% White 7% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 76% Other or unknown 24% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in pre-kindergarten classrooms in public, federally funded Head Start programs and California state-funded preschool programs and schools in agricultural regions of California. These programs were located in 10 school districts.
Study sample
The analytic sample for the study included 189 children located in 20 intervention classrooms, and 183 children located in 21 comparison classrooms. The average age of children in the sample was 4.5 years at baseline. None of the children had significant neurodevelopmental disorders; no other information about special education status was reported. Seventy-six percent of children identified as Hispanic. Ninety percent did not report race or identified as other race, 7% identified as White, and 3% identified as Black. The primary language for 48% of children was English and the rest primarily spoke Spanish (41%) or were bilingual (12%). The manuscript notes that children were assessed in their primary language, so we can confirm that the assessments reflect their language. Approximately 54% of children in the sample were female, while all were eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. The families of all participating children were required to demonstrate low-income status to be eligible to enroll in the participating Head Start programs or state-funded preschools.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of Pre-K Mathematics, which is a supplemental program intended to mathematically enrich pre-kindergarten students’ school and home environments. This intervention includes classroom and home mathematics activities. The classroom mathematics activities were conducted in small groups with approximately four children per group. The activities occurred two times per week for approximately 15 to 20 minutes per group. On average, 85% of the recommended small group activity sessions were offered to each child. The classroom mathematics activities included concrete manipulatives. The curriculum units were: (1) number and number relations, (2) arithmetic operations (fall activities), (3) spatial sense and geometry, (4) patterns, (5) arithmetic operations (spring activities), and (6) measurement and data. Teachers also provided a mathematics learning center in the classroom with math applications or software. The home mathematics activities included picture strips as guides and were conducted by a parent or guardian with the child. The home activities were provided in English and Spanish.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison condition received typical (business as usual) pre-kindergarten mathematics instruction. Eleven of the comparison classrooms used a standard curriculum that included a mathematics component (specifically, Creative Curriculum, Frog Street, or Houghton Mifflin), while 10 did not use a specific mathematics curriculum. Teachers in the comparison condition received no training before or during the school year that focused on mathematics. None of them provided intentional small-group mathematics activities.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the intervention condition received 45 hours of mandatory training across 6 days through Pre-K Mathematics curriculum workshops. Teachers in the intervention condition also received on-site coaching one or two times per month with project trainers. During training and coaching, teachers learned the Pre-K Mathematics curriculum, mathematics instructional practices (mathematically focused small-group activities), how to use implementation tools (progress monitoring and dosage tracking), and strategies to support parents’ use of home mathematics activities.
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).