Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve (2007). Journal of Applied School Psychology, v24 n1 p1-28. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ783511
Reviewed: December 2017
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 Accelerated Math® .
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample (NCE);
|
61.08 |
54.96 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Gifted and talented;
|
82.07 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
686.52 |
665.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
62.46 |
57.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample (Scale);
|
699.55 |
674.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 0% | |
| Black | 3% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| Other or unknown | 68% | |
| White | 28% |
| Hispanic | 6% |
The study was conducted in 47 schools in 24 states. The eligible sample of students which is reviewed in this report includes grades 3–6. The study did not report the number of schools in this sample.15 The study occurred in the second semester of the 2001–02 school year.
Among all students in the analytic sample in grades 3–6, approximately 17% qualified for free or reduced-price meals, 49% were female, 5% were learning disabled or in special education, and 3% were English language learners.
Intervention students used Accelerated Math® as a supplement to the existing math curriculum in the second semester of the school year (between January and May). The authors did not specify which version of Accelerated Math® was used.
Comparison students were taught using their school’s existing math curriculum. The authors did not describe or name the curriculum.
Intervention teachers participated in a 1-day training session conducted by Renaissance Learning. The training was designed to familiarize teachers with Accelerated Math® and to guide them in integrating it into the curriculum and instruction. Of the 68 Accelerated Math® teachers in the full sample of grades 3–10, 66 attended the training. Teachers faxed weekly reports generated by Accelerated Math® to Renaissance Learning which were used by the publisher to assess integrity of implementation. Analyses of these reports were used to guide phone consultations with teachers to support implementation during the school year. The study does not indicate how often these consultations occurred or whether all intervention group teachers participated.
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.
Renaissance Learning. (2003). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Madison, WI: Author.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Improve Mathematics Skills for Students in Title I Programs. Preventing School Failure, v48 n4 p10-14.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Instruction of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, v27 n4 p293-319.
Reviewed: July 2017
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 Accelerated Math® .
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.
Renaissance Learning. (2003). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Madison, WI: Author.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Improve Mathematics Skills for Students in Title I Programs. Preventing School Failure, v48 n4 p10-14.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Instruction of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, v27 n4 p293-319.
Reviewed: July 2011
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 Accelerated Math® .
Reviewed: September 2010
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 Accelerated Math® .
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
Semester |
Grade 4;
|
686.50 |
665.22 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 3% | |
| White | 17% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
The study was conducted in 47 schools in 24 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). The authors did not report whether all schools and states were represented in the elementary school sample.
The initial study sample included 2,397 students (1,319 treatment and 1,078 comparison) in grades 3–10 during the 2001–02 school year. Students were drawn from 125 classrooms (67 treatment and 58 comparison) in 47 schools in 24 states. The elementary school analysis sample in this review included 1,680 students (869 treatment and 811 comparison) in grades 3–5. The grade 3 and grade 5 samples had large differences in baseline test scores that were not controlled for in the analysis. Therefore, only the grade 4 results for 614 students (303 treatment and 311 comparison) are reported.
Students were taught by teachers using Accelerated Math™ during the spring semester of the 2001–02 school year. Teachers assigned to the Accelerated Math™ treatment group were asked to use the program with their existing math curriculum.
Comparison classrooms were drawn from the same schools as treatment classrooms. Teachers assigned to the comparison group used their usual math curriculum and practices.
Students were pretested in January 2002 and posttested in May 2002 using STAR Math, a computer adaptive math achievement test. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
g Intervention teachers participated in a one-day training session conducted by Renaissance Learning. The training was designed to familiarize teachers with Accelerated Math™ and to guide them in integrating it into curriculum and instruction. Of 68 treatment group teachers in the full sample (grades 3–8), 66 attended the training
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.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Tardrew, S. P., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2003). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students., Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Reviewed: September 2008
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 Accelerated Math® .
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2002 STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7 and 8;
|
801.14 |
786.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
2002 STAR Math scale scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6;
|
773.43 |
762.80 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 1% | |
| White | 44% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
The study was conducted in 47 schools in 24 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). The authors did not report whether all schools and states were represented in the middle school (grades 6–8) sample.
The initial study sample included 2,397 students (1,319 treatment and 1,078 comparison) in grades 3–10 during the 2001/02 school year from 125 classrooms (67 treatment and 58 comparison) in 47 schools in 24 states. The middle school analysis sample in this review included 475 grade 6–8 students (235 treatment, 240 comparison) in 25 classrooms (13 treatment, 12 comparison). Of the students, 43% were male (43% treatment, 43% comparison), and 49% female (48% treatment, 51% comparison). Of the total student gender, 7% were reported as unspecified (8% treatment, 6% comparison). Of the students, 0% were Asian (0% treatment, 0% comparison), 1% African- American (1% treatment, 0% comparison), 9% Hispanic (9% treatment, 9% comparison), 0% Native American (0% treatment, 0% comparison), 44% White (38% treatment, 49% comparison), and 46% were reported as unspecified (51% treatment, 42% comparison).
Students were taught by teachers using Accelerated Math during the spring semester of the 2001/02 school year. A progress-monitoring software program, Accelerated Math can be used with teachers’ existing math curriculum. The program tracks students’ daily activities, provides immediate feedback to students and teachers, alerts teachers’ to students struggling with certain assignments, and monitors student achievement. Teachers assigned to the Accelerated Math treatment group were asked to use the program with their existing math curriculum.
Teachers assigned to the comparison group did not use Accelerated Math but continued their usual math curriculum and practices.
Using a computer adaptive test of math achievement (STAR Math), students were pretested in January 2002 and posttested in May 2002.
Intervention teachers participated in a one-day training session conducted by Renaissance Learning. The training was designed to familiarize teachers with Accelerated Math and to guide them in integrating it into curriculum and instruction. Of 68 treatment group teachers in the full sample, 66 attended the training.
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.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Tardrew, S. P. (2003). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math (Final report). Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Tardrew, Steve; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Instruction of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, v27 n4 p293-319.
Ysseldyke, Jim; Betts, Joe; Thill, Teri; Hannigan, Eileen. (2004). Use of an Instructional Management System to Improve Mathematics Skills for Students in Title I Programs. Preventing School Failure, v48 n4 p10-14.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube