Replicating the CGI Experiment in Diverse Environments: Effects on Grade 1 and 2 Student Mathematics Achievement in the First Program Year. Research Report No. 2020-02
Schoen, Robert C.; LaVenia, Mark; Tazaz, Amanda M.; Farina, Kristy; Dixon, Juli K.; Secada, Walter G. (2020). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED608060
-
examining15,357Students, gradesK-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
i-Ready Mathematics |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades: 3, 4, 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades: K, 1, 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: End of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades: 3, 4, 5;
|
486.00 |
474.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: Middle of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-4 Months |
Grades: 3, 4, 5;
|
472.30 |
463.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: Beginning of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-9 Months |
Grades: 3, 4, 5;
|
457.40 |
450.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: Beginning of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-9 Months |
Grades: 1, 2;
|
393.60 |
390.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: Middle of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-4 Months |
Grades: K, 1, 2;
|
397.50 |
394.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
i-Ready Mathematics: End of Year |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades: K, 1, 2;
|
412.60 |
409.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics Performance and Cognition Interview (MPAC) |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
Randomized subsample of grade 1 and 2 students in participating classrooms;
|
0.47 |
0.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Math Problems (MP) subtest |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
Grade 1 and 2 students in participating classrooms;
|
166.63 |
161.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Math Computation (MC) subtest |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
Grade 1 and 2 students in participating classrooms;
|
160.95 |
160.50 |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Suburban, 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
Florida
-
Race Asian 5% Black 18% Other or unknown 43% Two or more races 3% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 58% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 68% No FRPL 32%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 22 public elementary schools located in two adjacent school districts in Florida. The schools served students in kindergarten through fifth grade and represented a range of demographic and socioeconomic contexts.
Study sample
The study included students in grades K-5. The findings measured after the first program year were based on 2,172 grade 1 and 2 students who, at the time the study began, were enrolled in classrooms of teachers who volunteered to participate in the study. Among these students, a sample of 622 students were randomly selected to complete a developer-created interview that assessed mathematics performance and cognition. Findings measured at the conclusion of the five-year intervention period included all students in grades K-5 who were enrolled in a study school during that year; all students in the participating schools during that year were included in the analyses, even students not taught by a teacher who participated in the intervention.
Intervention Group
Teachers in schools assigned to the intervention condition were offered the opportunity to participate in Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) professional development, a structured program designed to improve teachers’ understanding of children’s mathematical thinking and to support instructional decision making in mathematics. CGI professional development focused on helping teachers interpret students’ solution strategies and use that information to guide classroom instruction. In this study, CGI professional development was delivered by facilitators affiliated with Teachers Development Group and consisted of multiple full-day workshops each year, typically totaling about eight days per year, along with opportunities for discussion, reflection, and collaborative learning. The program aimed to provide teachers with three years of professional development, with content building across years. The program was implemented over 5 years in the intervention schools. During the first two years, teachers in grades 1 and 2 began participating; over the next three years, teachers of kindergarten and grades 3, 4, and 5 participated. Participation in CGI professional development was voluntary, and not all eligible teachers chose to participate. Students in the intervention group may have received instruction from a CGI teacher in one or more grades between K-5. Some students included in the intervention group may never have been taught by a teacher participating in the CGI program.
Comparison Group
Teachers in schools assigned to the comparison condition were not offered CGI professional development. These schools continued with district-selected professional development activities that were not focused on early mathematics content targeted by CGI. In one district, comparison schools were offered Bridge to STEM, a professional development program based on the Ramps and Pathways curriculum, which focused on science instruction related to force and motion. In the other district, comparison schools were offered a data-driven science professional development initiative. These professional development activities were selected by district leaders and reflected typical professional learning opportunities available to schools at the time. As with the intervention condition, participation in comparison professional development activities was voluntary, and teachers in comparison schools were not prevented from engaging in other district-supported professional learning.
Support for implementation
Facilitators delivering the CGI professional development received training and support through Teachers Development Group, which prepared them to lead workshops and guide teacher learning. The study did not report additional coaching, monitoring, or fidelity enforcement beyond the professional development activities themselves. The study team did not require a minimum level of teacher participation for schools to remain in the intervention condition.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Schoen, Robert C.; LaVenia, Mark; Champagne, Zachary M.; Farina, Kristy; Tazaz, Amanda M. (2017). Mathematics Performance and Cognition (MPAC) Interview: Measuring First- and Second-Grade Student Achievement in Number, Operations, and Equality in Spring 2015. Research Report No. 2016-02.
-
Robert Schoen; Wendy Bray; Claire Riddell; Charity Buntin; Naomi Iuhasz-Velez; Walter Secada; Eva Yujia Li. (2024). Looking inside the Black Box: Measuring Implementation and Detecting Group-Level Impact of Cognitively Guided Instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v55 n4 p163-181.
-
Schoen, R. C., Rhoads, C., Perez, A. L., Tazaz, A. M., & Secada, W. G. (2024). Impact of Cognitively Guided Instruction on Elementary School Mathematics Achievement: Five Years After the Initial Opportunity. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).