DiLeo, J. (2007).
Reviewed: August 2009
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 Odyssey® Math.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment |
Odyssey® Math vs. Houghton Mifflin |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
1583.00 |
1480.00 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 5% | |
| White | 94% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
The study was conducted in one school district in central Pennsylvania
In five out of ten schools within a single school district, fifth-grade teachers were randomly assigned to use CompassLearning’s Odyssey Language Arts or Odyssey Math in their classrooms. Random assignment of the thirteen study teachers occurred after students were assigned to classrooms by their principals. The students in the Odyssey Language Arts classrooms served as the control group to the students using Odyssey Math (the intervention of interest for this WWC review). Two classrooms of students from one school were removed from the analysis sample because the school was a magnet school that had different demographic composition from the other schools. The final analysis sample, after excluding children with missing data, included 4 schools with 7 treatment classrooms (125 students) and 4 comparison classrooms (82 students). The author presented third-grade Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) scores to establish baseline equivalence. Fourth-grade students did not take the PSSA in 2005, so third grade was the most recent year available. Post-attrition treatment and control groups had small differences on baseline test scores that were not statistically significant, but that did require the author control the baseline pretest (according to the Elementary Math protocol). Because the differential attrition rates between the treatment and comparison groups at the classroom level were greater than 5%, but the author provided the appropriate demonstration of equivalence and a control for the pretest, the WWC rated this study as meeting evidence standards with reservations. Approximately 7 percent of the students in the analysis sample were non-white, 63 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, and 14 percent of the students had an Individualized Education Program (IEP). An additional school was also presented in the author’s analysis but is not included in this report because teachers in that school were not randomly assigned to use either the Language Arts or Math software and could have used both.
The intervention condition consisted of using Odyssey Math during the 2005–06 school year in addition to the usual mathematics curriculum, Houghton Mifflin. Teachers were asked to use the software a minimum of 90 minutes per week (the developer-recommended minimum), but usage levels varied across classrooms, at least in part because of access to technology. In two of the schools, students could only access the software during their weekly assigned time in the computer labs. In the other two schools, students had greater access to the software, as it was available during their weekly computer labs, in their classrooms via wireless laptops, and even at home. Students in the Odyssey Math condition could use the Odyssey software for any subject except Language Arts. Some of the students (from two of the schools) had access to the Odyssey software in the 4th grade—the year before the study began.
The students in the control condition used only the district’s Houghton Mifflin curriculum for mathematics. These students used the Odyssey software for Language Arts and possibly for other subjects (other than Mathematics). Some of the students (from two of the schools) had access to the Odyssey software in the 4th grade—the year before the study began.
Math achievement was measured using the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), which is the standardized assessment used for state accountability. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
It is not clear how much training the teachers in this study received. However, the district had substantial funds to purchase professional development from CompassLearning for teachers in two of the schools during the 2004–05 school year through an Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. During the 2005–06 school year, teachers who used Odyssey during the previous (2004–05) school year trained teachers using it for the first time in 2005–06.
Reviewed: June 2009
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 Odyssey® Math.
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