Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2006, June). Paper presented at the Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference, Washington, D. C.
Reviewed: July 2007
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 Building Blocks for Math/SRA Real Math Building Blocks.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Mathematics Assessment |
Building Blocks for Math/SRA Real Math Building Blocks vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
61.69 |
53.22 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in Head Start and state-funded preschool programs in New York State.
Teachers were randomly assigned to conditions in two separate steps. Twenty-four teachers from preschool programs serving low-income children were randomly assigned to two intervention groups (Building Blocks for Math or Pre-K Mathematics) or a business-as-usual comparison group. Consequently there were a total of 14 teachers in the Building Blocks for Math group and 14 teachers in the business-as-usual comparison group. Eight preschool-age children were randomly selected from each classroom for assessment (N = 224). After attrition, the final sample included 28 teachers and 202 children (14 teachers and 101 children in the Building Blocks for Math group; 14 teachers and 101 children in the business-as-usual comparison group).
Children in the Building Blocks for Math intervention condition used the Building Blocks for Math curriculum in 10- to 15-minute small-group (4–6 children) math activities weekly. These children also participated in 5- to 15-minute whole-group math activities four times a week and 5- to 10-minute computer activities (DLM Express) twice a week. Related family activities were sent home weekly. The intervention lasted for 26 weeks, and intervention teachers maintained their daily activities and schedule while inserting mathematics activities at appropriate times during the day.
Children in the business-as-usual comparison group participated in their regular daily activities and schedule, with emphasis on small groups and computer activities. These included city-wide math activities, Creative Curriculum, Montessori math activities, or “home-grown” math materials based on state standards.
The primary outcome domain assessed was math and it was measured with the Early Mathematics Assessment (see Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of the outcome measure). The study authors also assessed implementation fidelity with the Fidelity of Implementation measure and the quality of the mathematics environment using the Classroom Observation of Early Mathematics Environment and Teaching. This WWC review does not include the results from these observations in this WWC review.
Professional development activities for teachers in the Building Blocks for Math group consisted of four days of training, a monthly two-hour class, and monthly in-class coaching by project staff. Teacher training covered a number of topics such as supporting mathematical development in the classroom, recognizing and supporting mathematics throughout the day, setting up mathematics learning centers, teaching with computers, small-group activities, and supporting mathematical development in the home. Learning trajectories were emphasized in the Building Blocks for Math training via a web-based application called Building Blocks Learning Trajectories.
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