Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact of Content-Intensive Teacher Professional Development. NCEE 2016-4010
Garet, Michael S.; Heppen, Jessica B.; Walters, Kirk; Parkinson, Julia; Smith, Toni M.; Song, Mengli; Garrett, Rachel; Yang, Rui; Borman, Geoffrey D. (2016). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED569154
-
examining3,677Students, grade4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores - Math |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) - Math |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.09 |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Richness scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample;
|
0.24 |
-0.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Student Participation scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Errors and Imprecision scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample;
|
-0.34 |
-0.15 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Student Participation scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
-9 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.20 |
-0.49 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Richness scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
-9 Months |
Full Sample;
|
-0.33 |
-0.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI): Errors and Imprecision scale |
Mathematics content-intensive teacher professional development – Garet et al. (2016) vs. Business as usual |
-9 Months |
Full Sample;
|
-0.36 |
-0.43 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Other or unknown: 51% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
Race Asian 6% Black 14% Other or unknown 33% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Other or unknown 70% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 58% Other or unknown 42%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in 73 elementary schools across six urban, suburban, and rural districts in five states. It focused on grade 4 teachers in self-contained classrooms where they taught multiple subjects, including mathematics. Of the participating schools, 50% were located in urban areas, 27% in suburban areas, and 23% in rural areas.
Study sample
Teachers were randomly assigned within schools to intervention or comparison conditions. The analytic sample included 165 grade 4 teachers (79 intervention, 86 comparison) and 3,677 students (1,760 intervention, 1,917 comparison). Most teachers (94%) had standard certification and 64% held a master's degree or higher. A third of teachers (33%) had between 4 and 10 years of experience, a third (33%) had 11 to 20 years of experience, 17% had more than 20 years of experience, and 16% had fewer than 4 years of experience.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of three components of professional development (PD) for grade 4 math teachers. The first was Intel Math, an intensive 80-hour workshop delivered over 10-13 days during the summer, focusing on deepening teachers' knowledge of K-8 mathematics. The second component, Mathematics Learning Community, comprised five 2-hour collaborative meetings held after school throughout the year, each addressing a different math topic from Intel Math. The final component involved three 1-hour video-based coaching sessions (one in fall, two in spring) where teachers received feedback on their math instruction. In total, teachers received approximately 93 hours of PD over the course of 1 academic year.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition conducted business as usual, participating in any professional development activities offered by their schools or districts.
Support for implementation
Facilitators were hired by the district to lead the Mathematics Learning Community meetings and lead the video coaching sessions. They received training to lead the Mathematics Learning Community meetings from Intel Math and the study researchers. They received support to prepare for the video coaching sessions from raters associated with the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
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).