Ysseldyke, Jim; Bolt, Daniel M. (2007). School Psychology Review, v36 n3 p453-467. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ788347
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 Assessment |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
50.08 |
44.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Terra Nova Math |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
46.57 |
45.43 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 25% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 25% |
| Hispanic | 48% |
The study includes five schools in four southern states (Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas) in grades 2–5. The study occurred in the 2003–04 school year.
Among all students at the time of random assignment, approximately 49% were female, 48% were Hispanic, 25% were African-American, 25% were White, and less than 1% were Asian or Native American.
Intervention students were taught using Accelerated Math® as a supplement to the existing math curriculum for the entire school year. The study does not describe how the program was used other than to note that teachers were assigned to use Accelerated Math® with their regular math curriculum. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the intervention group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 2–5 students in the intervention group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math®. The authors conducted an exploratory analyses to determine if certain types of students (for example, based on gender, ability, or race/ethnicity) were excluded and did not find systematic differences between those students participating and not participating. The study did not specify which edition or version of Accelerated Math® was used.
Comparison students used their schools’ existing math curriculum, which was Harcourt Math or Silver Burdett Math in Alabama, Houghton Mifflin Math Central in Florida and South Carolina, and Sharon Wells Math or Harcourt Math in Texas.
Intervention teachers received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning Math Consultant to help them implement Accelerated Math® in their classrooms. This support included help on the use of the software’s progress monitoring features, administration of the STAR Math test, and use of the test results to inform student placement. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support through Renaissance Learning’s toll-free number.
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.
Bolt, Daniel M.; Ysseldyke, Jim; Patterson, Michael J. (2010). Students, Teachers, and Schools as Sources of Variability, Integrity, and Sustainability in Implementing Progress Monitoring. School Psychology Review, v39 n4 p612-630.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
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.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Bolt, Daniel M.; Ysseldyke, Jim; Patterson, Michael J. (2010). Students, Teachers, and Schools as Sources of Variability, Integrity, and Sustainability in Implementing Progress Monitoring. School Psychology Review, v39 n4 p612-630.
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 normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-5;
|
47.12 |
44.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-5;
|
46.59 |
45.43 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 28% | |
| White | 24% |
| Hispanic | 38% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 62% |
The elementary school sample analyzed here comprises five schools in four states: Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas.
The initial study sample included 3,309 students from 133 classrooms in nine schools, representing eight school districts in eight states. Sample students were in grades 2–8 during the 2003–04 school year. In the initial study sample, 38% of the students were Hispanic, 28% were African-American, 24% were Caucasian, 1% were Asian, 0% were Native American, and 8% were not specified. The baseline sample for grades 2–5 was 896 students (441 treatment and 455 control) in 40 classrooms (20 treatment and 20 control). The results here are drawn from the test-takers in the 40 elementary school classrooms included in the analysis—587 students took the STAR Math test (315 treatment, 272 control) and 700 took the Terra Nova test (355 treatment, 345 control). Postattrition treatment and control groups were equivalent on pretests at baseline.
Students were taught by teachers using the Accelerated Math™ program during the 2003–04 school year. Teachers assigned to the treatment group were asked to use Accelerated Math™ with their regular math curriculum. The existing curricula included: Harcourt Math or Silver Burdett Math in Alabama, Houghton Mifflin Math Central in Florida and South Carolina, and Sharon Wells Math or Harcourt Math in Texas. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the initial treatment group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 2–5 students in the treatment group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math™.
Students in the control group were taught using the same set of math curricula as the treatment group, but without the addition of Accelerated Math™.
Participating students were pretested in October 2003 and posttested in May 2004 using two nationally normed, standardized tests (STAR Math and Terra Nova) for math achievement. Students in the treatment and control groups were compared using a linear regression analysis in which posttest scores were regressed on pretest scores. In the paper, the authors include school level dummies and interactions between the school and the treatment group in their analysis of outcomes for students in grades 2–8. The results presented in this report related to students in grades 2–5 (provided to the WWC by the author) include only controls for pretests. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Teachers in the intervention group were trained to use Accelerated Math™. During the school year, teachers using Accelerated Math™ received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning math consultant, who guided teachers on how to improve their use of the program. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support.
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., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2004 STAR Math normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 6-8;
|
48.11 |
44.45 |
Yes |
|
|
|
2004 Terra Nova normal curve equivalent scores |
Accelerated Math® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 6-8;
|
46.89 |
48.17 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 28% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 24% |
| Hispanic | 38% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 62% |
The study took place in eight schools in seven districts in seven states: Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and two schools in Texas. The middle school sample analyzed here comprises three schools in Michigan, Mississippi, and North Carolina.
The initial study sample included 3,309 students in grades 2–8 during the 2003/04 school year from 133 classrooms in nine schools, representing eight school districts in eight states. In the initial study sample 1% of the students were Asian, 28% African-American, 38% Hispanic, 0% Native American, 24% White, and 8% not specified. This review focuses on the middle school sample, which initially included 1,823 grade 6–8 students (1,010 treatment and 813 control) in 73 classrooms (41 treatment and 32 control). Demographic data on the middle school students could not be culled from the original study. Middle school classrooms dropped from the analysis include: 7 special education or enrichment treatment classrooms taught by teachers who had access to, but did not receive training in, Accelerated Math; 4 classrooms (2 treatment, 2 control) taught by two teachers who, according to the authors, arbitrarily chose which students to treat; and 22 classrooms (11 treatment, 11 controls) in a large, urban middle school district that, according to the authors, was unable to devote sufficient time and resources to Accelerated Math. The results here are drawn from the test-takers in the 40 middle school classrooms (21 treatment, 19 control) included in the analysis—792 students took the STAR Math test (418 treatment, 374 control) and 851 took the Terra Nova test (454 treatment, 397 control). Postattrition treatment and control groups were equivalent on pretests at baseline. Because these samples reflect attrition rates greater than 20%, the WWC rated this study as meeting evidence standards with reservations.
Students were taught by teachers using the Accelerated Math program during the 2003/04 school year. Accelerated Math is a progress-monitoring software program that teachers can use with their 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 treatment group were asked to use Accelerated Math with their present math curriculum. In practice, the program was not implemented for approximately 40% of grade 2–8 students in the initial treatment group; the authors did not report the percentage of grade 6–8 students in the treatment group of the analysis sample that did not participate in Accelerated Math.
Students in the control group were taught using existing math curricula, without Accelerated Math. The existing curricula included: Scott Foresman Middle School Math, Consumer Math, Everyday Math, Transition Math (Prentice Hall), and Chicago Math in Michigan; Glencoe in Mississippi; and Glencoe, McGraw-Hill, and the state curriculum in North Carolina. Control students had the same teachers as the intervention group students.
Participating students were pretested in October 2003 and posttested in May 2004 using two nationally normed, standardized tests (STAR Math and Terra Nova) for math achievement. Students in the treatment and control groups were compared using a linear regression analysis in which posttest scores were regressed on pretest scores and on dummy variables related to main effects for experimental condition and school.
Teachers in the intervention group were trained to use Accelerated Math. During the school year, teachers using Accelerated Math received three to five visits from a Renaissance Learning math consultant, who guided teachers on how to improve their use of the program. Teachers also had unlimited access to technical support.
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., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). High implementers of Accelerated Math show significant gains over low- or non-implementers. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
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