Research References
Byun, S., Irvin, M. J., & Bell, B. A. (2015). Advanced math
course taking: Effects on math achievement and college
enrollment. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(4),
439–468.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071098. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4620065/.
From the ERIC abstract: “Using data from the
Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002-2006, the authors
investigated the effects of advanced math course taking on
math achievement and college enrollment and how such effects
varied by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Results
from propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses showed
that advanced math course taking had positive effects on math
achievement and college enrollment. Results also demonstrated
that the effect of advanced math course taking on math
achievement was greater for low socioeconomic status students
than for high socioeconomic status students, but smaller for
Black students than for White students. No interaction effects
were found for college enrollment. Limitations, policy
implications, and future research directions are discussed.”
Early, D. M., Berg, J. K., Alicea, S., Si, Y., Aber, J. L.,
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). The impact of Every
Classroom, Every Day on high school student achievement:
Results from a school-randomized trial.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(1), 3–29.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1089961. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089961.pdf.
From the ERIC abstract: “Every Classroom, Every Day
(ECED) is a set of instructional improvement interventions
designed to increase student achievement in math and
English/language arts (ELA). ECED includes three primary
components: (a) systematic classroom observations by school
leaders, (b) intensive professional development and support
for math teachers and instructional leaders to reorganize math
instruction, assessment, and grading around mastery of
benchmarks, and (c) a structured literacy curriculum that
supplements traditional English courses, with accompanying
professional development and support for teachers surrounding
its use. The present study is a two-year trial, conducted by
independent researchers, which employed a school-randomized
design and included 20 high schools (10 treatment; 10 control)
in five districts in four states. The students were ethnically
diverse and most were eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch. Results provided evidence that ECED improved scores on
standardized tests of math achievement, but not standardized
tests of ELA achievement. Findings are discussed in terms of
differences between math and ELA and of implications for
future large-scale school-randomized trials.”
Hill, K. K., Bicer, A., & Capraro, R. M. (2017). Effect of
teachers’ professional development from MathForward™ on
students’ math achievement.
International Journal of Research in Education and Science,
3(1), 67–74.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1126679
From the ERIC abstract: “MathForward™, developed in
2004-2005 in cooperation with the Richardson (TX) Independent
School District, was implemented nationwide in 2007. The
program integrates TI technology and professional development
while focusing on student achievement and teacher efficacy.
This study investigated the effect of the MathForward™ program
on student achievement scores of Algebra I students from a
southeast Texas high school. The specific purpose of this
study was to understand whether there was an effect on
students’ STARR mathematics scores, accounting for teacher
professional development and years of experience. To do this,
structural equation modeling (SEM) in M-plus was employed. The
result of the present study showed that our model fits well to
the data and the explained variance of students’ mathematics
achievement (R(superscript 2) = 0.14).”
Irvin, M., Byun, S., Smiley, W. S., & Hutchins, B. C. (2017).
Relation of opportunity to learn advanced math to the
educational attainment of rural youth.
American Journal of Education, 123(3), 475–510.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1139181. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6586243/.
From the ERIC abstract: “Our study examined the
relation of advanced math course taking to the educational
attainment of rural youth. We used data from the Educational
Longitudinal Study of 2002. Regression analyses demonstrated
that when previous math achievement is accounted for, rural
students take advanced math at a significantly lower rate than
urban students. Compared with urban students, rural students
have less change in their math achievement from tenth to
twelfth grade and are less likely to be enrolled in a 4-year
college 2 years postsecondary, and these differences are
explained by advanced math course taking. Limitations,
implications, and future research directions are discussed.”
Kim, S., Wallsworth, G., Xu, R., Schneider, B., Frank, K.,
Jacob, B., & Dynarski, S. (2019). The impact of the Michigan
Merit Curriculum on high school math course-taking.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2),
164–188.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1213935
From the ERIC abstract: “Michigan Merit Curriculum
(MMC) is a statewide college-preparatory policy that applies
to the high school graduating class of 2011 and later. Using
detailed Michigan high school transcript data, this article
examines the effect of the MMC on various students’
course-taking and achievement outcomes. Our analyses suggest
that (a) post-MMC cohorts took and passed approximately 0.2
additional years’ of math courses, and students at low
socioeconomic status (SES) schools drove nearly all of these
effects; (b) post-policy students also completed higher-level
courses, with the largest increase among the least prepared
students; (c) we did not find strong evidence on students’ ACT
math scores; and (d) we found an increase in college
enrollment rates for post-MMC cohorts, and the increase is
mostly driven by well-prepared students.”
Montemayor, D., Kupczynski, L., & Mundy, M.-A. (2015).
Achievement and experiences of first and second-generation
students in a rural south Texas high school.
Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 16, 1–10.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069388
From the ERIC abstract: “Hispanic immigrant students
face several challenges to academic success. The purpose of
this sequential explanatory research was to identify academic
differences that existed between first and second generation
Hispanic immigrant students on the 10th grade Geometry End of
Course scores in a public, rural high school in south Texas
and to focus on the students' experiences in school. While no
significant differences were found quantitatively, the
qualitative analysis found that the participants had not
encountered major obstacles as depicted in the review of the
literature. Rather they utilized a resilient social network to
counter obstacles and have positive school experiences.”
Nagle, K., Pratt-Williams, J., Schmidt, R., Swantek, C.,
Lyulchenko, M., & McGhee, R. (2016).
Evaluation of the Rural Math Excel Partnership Project
final report.
SRI International.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579268
From the ERIC abstract: “This is the final external
evaluation report prepared by SRI International for the Rural
Math Excel Partnership (RMEP) project, an investing in
innovation (i3) development project funded by the U.S.
Department of Education. Operated by Virginia Advanced Study
Strategies, Inc. (VASS), the RMEP project included six rural
school districts (LEAs) in five Virginia counties as partners.
The project goal was to develop and implement a model of
shared responsibility among families, math teachers, and
communities in rural areas to prepare students enrolled in
Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Algebra Functions and
Data Analysis (AFDA) courses for success in advanced high
school and postsecondary STEM studies. The long term outcome
was for students to leave school ready, at a minimum, to
enroll in postsecondary programs focused on technician-level
careers in STEM-related fields considered important to the
regional rural economy. Due to low levels of implementation by
some teachers in project years 1 and 2, in fall 2015 (year 3)
the RMEP team focused their supports and services on a group
of 24 high-implementation teachers in the seven middle and
seven high schools. Key implementation and impact findings
were the RMEP team completed five of the six core
implementation activities meeting the standard of performance
set by the evaluation team; student and family access to
technology did not meet performance standards. It was
difficult and time consuming to locate students and families
in need of tablets and broadband access at the 14 schools and
then to provide these individuals with the necessary services
in their homes. Furthermore, district firewalls, teacher
comfort level with technology, and registration requirements
for the MARi online video platform created significant delays
for the RMEP project throughout Year 2. By the end of the
project's third year, however, RMEP provided technology access
to all the students and their families of the 24 teachers.
Willingness of individual teachers to perform their role in
the model of shared responsibility varied, especially in the
number of videos that teachers assigned to students and their
efforts to hold Family Math Nights. Although full
implementation of the model was restricted to a single
semester, there was evidence that this higher level of support
was beginning to have positive impacts on the teachers in
terms of video assignments and student completion of these
assignments. Evaluations from families and students showed
that participating in RMEP-related events were useful and
worth their time, though attendance was lower than expected
for these events. Teachers and community members reported that
organizing these events required a large time commitment and
that they needed more help in identifying ways to increase
attendance. SRI evaluators found that the RMEP project had no
impact on students' achievement or attitudes by the end of
2015. Possible reasons included differences between the
content knowledge that the Virginia Standards of Learning
(SOL) exams assess and the content emphasized by the RMEP
project. Evaluators were not able to limit the sample to only
those students whose teachers implemented the intervention in
the 2015-16 school year (the high-implementing teachers). The
small sample size of students may not have been large enough
to detect a very small effect. Key model components were not
fully implemented until fall 2015, an insufficient time period
for the intervention to have a significant impact on the
targeted outcomes. Nevertheless, the RMEP project can serve as
an illustrative example for other such initiatives, and
suggests that similar projects should consider level of
participant buy-in, anticipate and be able to troubleshoot
technology access issues, and provide enough time as well as
staff support for full implementation.”
Snipes, J., Huang, C.-W., Jaquet, K., & Finkelstein, N.
(2015).
The effects of the Elevate Math summer program on math
achievement and algebra readiness
(REL 2015-096). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Regional Educational
Laboratory West.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558157
From the ERIC abstract: “The Effects of the Elevate
Math summer program on math achievement and algebra readiness:
This randomized trial examined the effects of the Elevate Math
summer program on math achievement and algebra readiness, as
well as math interest and self-efficacy, among rising 8th
grade students in California’s Silicon Valley. The Elevate
Math summer math program targets students who score in the
range between “high basic” and “low proficient” on state math
tests. It consists of 19 days of mathematics instruction,
consisting of three hours per day in traditional classroom
instruction and one hour per day using Khan Academy (a free
online learning system). During summer 2014, students were
randomly assigned to a treatment group that received access to
the program at the beginning of the summer or to a control
group that received access to the program later in the summer.
End-of-program test scores and survey responses of students in
the treatment group were compared with those of students in
the control group prior to their exposure to the program.
Treatment group students scored significantly higher than the
control group (4 points or 0.7 standard deviation) on a test
of algebra readiness. They were also significantly more likely
(29 percent versus 12 percent) to reach achievement thresholds
associated with success in algebra I. However, treatment and
control groups did not show significant differences in terms
of math interest or self-efficacy. The results show that the
Elevate Math summer program can significantly improve student
math achievement and algebra readiness; however, 70 percent of
program participants were still not ready for algebra I
content. This suggests that summer math programs such as
Elevate Math's may be important tools for improving math
achievement among rising eighth grade students, but most
targeted students will need additional support in order to
ensure success in algebra.”
REL Southwest Notes: What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
rating states, “Meets WWC standards without reservations
because it is a randomized controlled trial with low
attrition.”
Star, J. R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J.,
Keating, B., Larson, M. R., Lyskawa, J., McCallum, W. G.,
Porath, J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2015).
Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in
middle and high school students
(NCEE 2015-4010). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance (NCEE).
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Algebra_PG_Revised_02022018.pdf
From the ERIC abstract: “Mastering algebra is important
for future math and postsecondary success. Educators will find
practical recommendations for how to improve algebra
instruction in the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) practice
guide, “Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in
Middle and High School Students”. The methods and examples
included in the guide focus on helping students analyze solved
problems, recognize structure, and utilize alternative
approaches to solving algebra problems. Each recommendation
includes the level of supporting research evidence behind it,
examples to use in class, and solutions to potential
implementation roadblocks. Teachers can implement these
strategies in conjunction with existing standards or
curricula. In addition, these strategies can be utilized for
all students learning algebra in grades 6-12 and in diverse
contexts, including during both formative and summative
assessment. Administrators and professional development
providers can use the guide to implement evidence-based
instruction and align instruction with state standards or to
prompt teacher discussion in professional learning
communities.”
REL Southwest Notes: This publication was revised in
January 2019 and can be accessed using the “retrieved from”
hyperlink above. Also, the WWC rating states, “Ineligible for
review because it does not use an eligible design.”
What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Reports to consult
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007).
UCSMP Algebra. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention
Report.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance (NCEE).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499301
From the ERIC abstract: “‘University of Chicago School
Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra,’ designed to increase
students’ skills in algebra, is appropriate for students in
grades 7-10, depending on the students’ incoming knowledge.
This one-year course highlights applications, uses statistics
and geometry to develop the algebra of linear equations and
inequalities, and includes probability concepts in conjunction
with algebraic fractions. The curriculum emphasizes graphing,
while manipulation with rational algebraic expressions is
delayed until later courses. This curriculum uses the ‘UCSMP’
textbook. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed three
studies on ‘UCSMP Algebra.’ Of these, two studies met WWC
evidence standards with reservations and one study did not
meet WWC evidence screens. One study of ‘UCSMP Algebra’ first
edition, comparing it with ‘Saxon Math,’ and one study of
‘UCSMP Algebra’ second edition, comparing it to traditional
curricula, met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The
two studies included more than 200 middle- and high-school
students in four rural, suburban, and urban districts in the
West, Midwest, Northeast, and South. Based on the results of
these two studies, the WWC found potentially positive effects
on students’ math achievement.”
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). I CAN Learn®.
What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance (NCEE).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575354
From the ERIC abstract: “‘I CAN Learn®
is a computer-based math curriculum for students in middle
school, high school, and college. It provides math instruction
through a series of interactive lessons that students work on
individually at their own computers. Students move at their
own pace and must demonstrate mastery of each concept before
progressing to the next one. Classroom teachers may provide
individual, small-group, or whole-class instruction based on
students’ performance on the software program. This review
focuses on studies of ‘I CAN Learn®’s primary
courses, which include ‘Fundamentals of Math’ and
‘Pre-Algebra.’ The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified
one study of ‘I CAN Learn® that both falls
within the scope of the Primary Mathematics topic area and
meets WWC group design standards. No studies meet WWC group
design standards without reservations, and one study meets WWC
group design standards with reservations. This study included
9,886 students in eighth grade in one school district. ‘I CAN
Learn® had no discernible effects on the
mathematics test scores of eighth-grade students in primary
mathematics courses. The following are appended: (1) Research
details for Kerstyn (2002); (2) Outcome measures for the
mathematics achievement domain; (3) Findings included in the
rating for the mathematics achievement domain; and (4)
Description of supplemental findings for the mathematics
achievement domain.”