Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2002). In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.),Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 311–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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 Core-Plus Mathematics.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 2 (CPMP2): Coordinate Geometry subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1996 |
Grade 10;
|
16.10 |
11.13 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 2 (CPMP2): Contextual Algebra subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1996 |
Grade 10;
|
7.14 |
3.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 1 (CPMP1): Contextual Algebra I subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1995 |
Grade 9;
|
10.11 |
6.42 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 1 (CPMP1): Contextual Algebra II subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1995 |
Grade 9;
|
4.34 |
3.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
SAT |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 11 and 12;
|
484.60 |
467.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Iowa Test of Educational Development: Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking (ITED-Q) |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 9;
|
266.00 |
257.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Iowa Test of Educational Development: Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking (ITED-Q) |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 10;
|
281.40 |
280.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 2 (CPMP2): Procedural Algebra subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1996 |
Grade 10;
|
7.54 |
8.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Core-Plus Mathematics Project Part 1 (CPMP1): Procedural Algebra subtest |
Core-Plus Mathematics vs. Business as usual |
spring 1995 |
Grade 9;
|
8.92 |
10.87 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The full set of 36 field-test schools were located in Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. The 11 schools in the year one analysis included six from the Midwest (one urban, one rural, and four suburban), three from the West (one urban and two rural), one urban school from the East, and one rural school from the South. At each site, there were from two to five Core-Plus Mathematics teachers and from one to three comparison teachers. Five of the 11 schools continued into the year two analysis: two suburban, Midwestern schools and three urban schools, one from the South and two from the West.
Among an initial sample of 36 high schools that were field testing the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum, 11 schools volunteered to administer pretests and posttests to students in both Core-Plus Mathematics and traditional classrooms. The authors state that schools were encouraged to create heterogeneous classroom groupings, although this was not always possible. The authors utilized a stratified matched-pairs design to select the intervention and comparison samples. Students in comparison classrooms were grouped by their most recently completed math course, and then matched to students in the intervention group using pretest scores, school, and gender, in that order. This process was conducted separately during each of the two years of the study (only five of the 11 schools from year one agreed to posttest students in the comparison group in year two). The main analysis included 1,050 students (525 intervention and 525 comparison) in year one and 390 students (195 intervention and 195 control) in year two. Additional analyses (reported in Appendices A3 and A4) varied in sample size, with baseline equivalence information presented separately for each of these samples.
The intervention as implemented in the study included Course 1 and Course 2 of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum. The Core-Plus Mathematics Course 1 curriculum was used with ninth-grade students in year one, and Core-Plus Mathematics Course 2 was for tenth-grade students in year two. The authors note that the field-test versions of the Core-Plus Mathematics curriculum used in the study underwent revisions prior to the curriculum’s formal publication.
According to the authors, the nature of the instruction in the comparison classrooms was not specified in advance; a variety of traditional textbooks were used. Comparison classrooms during year one included 20 Algebra, five Pre-algebra, three General Mathematics, and two ninth-grade accelerated Geometry classes. Students in the year two comparison group were enrolled in either Algebra, Geometry, or Accelerated Advanced Algebra.
Student math achievement was assessed using several measures. The full analysis sample for years one and two completed the Iowa Tests of Educational Development mathematics subtest. Slightly smaller numbers of students completed two author-created outcome measures: the Course 1 CPMP Posttest and Course 2 CPMP Posttest. The SAT Mathematics subtest also served as an outcome measure for a subsample of students. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2
From each school, a minimum of one Core-Plus Mathematics teacher attended a two-week workshop prior to teaching a Core-Plus Mathematics course. In this workshop, teachers worked through the course materials by using a small-group investigative approach similar to the one that they would be using with their own students. The comparison teachers had no special in-service program.
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.
Schoen, H. L., Hirsch, C. R., & Ziebarth, S. W. (1998). An emerging profile of the mathematical achievement of students in the Core-Plus Mathematics project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
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