Kerstyn, C. (2002). Tampa, FL: Hillsborough County Public Schools.
Reviewed: August 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 I CAN Learn®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3), 2001 Scale Score;
|
298.00 |
294.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3), 2002 Scale Score;
|
293.81 |
289.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3 Advanced), 2002 Scale Score;
|
329.93 |
331.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3 Advanced), 2001 Scale Score;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3 students in 14 middle schools), 2002 Scale Score;
|
294.32 |
290.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Mathematics |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 8 (MJ-3 students in 36 middle schools), 2002 Scale Score;
|
294.16 |
295.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Test |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Grade 8 (MJ-3), 2001;
|
31.40 |
30.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Cumulative Test |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Grade 8 (MJ-3 Advanced), 2001;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 26% | |
| Other or unknown | 32% | |
| White | 42% |
| Hispanic | 29% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 72% |
The study was conducted in 524 classrooms across 36 schools in the Hillsborough County Public School District in Florida. The study occurred in the 2000–01 and 2001–02 school years.
The district implemented I CAN Learn® Algebra and I CAN Learn® Pre-Algebra in select classrooms within 12 middle schools during the 2000–01 school year. In the 2001–02 school year, the 12 middle schools continued implementing I CAN Learn®, and two more middle schools began implementing it. For the evaluation, within each study school, district staff selected comparison classrooms that used traditional instruction and matched them on several factors including: students’ prior achievement, time of day, instructional time, class size, and proportion of minority students. This review is based on the I CAN Learn® Pre-Algebra classrooms in the first (2000–01) and second year (2001–02) of the study, which included students in all of the district’s 36 middle schools in MJ-3 and MJ-3 Advanced classrooms with pre- and posttest data. In 2000–01, the MJ-3 analysis included 32 I CAN Learn® classrooms and 32 comparison classrooms. The MJ-3 Advanced analysis included 10 I CAN Learn® classrooms and 10 comparison classrooms. In 2001–02 school year, the MJ-3 analysis included 64 I CAN Learn® classrooms and 264 comparison classrooms. The MJ-3 Advanced analysis included 37 I CAN Learn® classrooms and 75 comparison classrooms. There were 9,886 students in the study: In the 2000–01 school year, there were 1,420 MJ-3 students and 430 MJ-3 Advanced students. Approximately 50% of the students were male, and about 45% were categorized as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. In terms of racial/ethnic composition, the intervention group was 37% White, 33% Hispanic, and 30% Black, compared to the comparison group, which was 47% White, 28% Hispanic, and 25% Black. In the 2001–02 school year, there were 5,957 MJ-3 students and 2,079 MJ-3 Advanced students. Less than 10% of the students were categorized as Exceptional Education (ESE), Limited English Proficiency (LEP), or home-schooled. Approximately 50% of comparison students were male. About 65% of intervention students and 39% of comparison students were categorized as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. In terms of racial/ethnic composition, the intervention group was 34% White, 34% Hispanic, and 28% Black, compared to the comparison group, which was 53% White, 22% Hispanic, and 20% Black. The author conducted analyses using alternate samples in the second year of the study (2001–02), and the additional second year analytic samples that met standards are also presented as supplemental findings in Appendix D. These include an alternate sample of students in all 36 of the middle schools in the district and a sample of students in the 14 middle schools that piloted I CAN Learn®. The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Intervention students were taught using I CAN Learn® as the primary source of math instruction for the entire academic school year. The curriculum includes 109 lessons, each of which has a five-part format that includes a warm-up activity, lesson presentation, journal activity, guided practice, and a quiz to ensure mastery of the lesson content. Students are expected to complete the lessons individually and at their own pace using interactive software with a virtual teacher that presents the multimodal lessons and demonstrates how to solve a problem if students make errors. In each class, a classroom teacher supported students with the lessons. The study did not specify which edition of the curriculum was used.
Comparison students used a traditional math curriculum already in place in the district. The author did not describe or name the comparison curriculum.
The study did not specify how much training intervention teachers received. The district contracted with JRL Enterprises, Inc. to use I CAN Learn® during the year prior to the study (1999–2000). To implement the curriculum, classrooms were equipped with desks, computer equipment, and electrical connectivity. JRL Enterprises, Inc. provided maintenance on the equipment and technical and instructional support to teachers.
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.
Kerstyn, C. (2001). Evaluation of the I CAN Learn® mathematics classroom: First year of implementation (2000–2001 school year). Tampa, FL: Hillsborough County Public Schools.
Kerstyn, C. (2004). Teachers’ mathematics preparation and eighth grade student mathematics achievement: Can an integrated learning system provide support when teachers’ professional preparation is limited?. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida).
Reviewed: August 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 I CAN Learn® Algebra.
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