Resendez, M., Fahmy, A., & Manley, M. A. (2005). Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Reviewed: April 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 Saxon Math.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) math scale score |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6;
|
2229.02 |
2174.49 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 13% | |
| Other or unknown | 47% | |
| White | 40% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
The study took place in 20 Texas schools located in rural, suburban, and urban districts. Students in Cohort F (the study sample in this review) were in the sixth grade in the 2003–04 school year.
Data were collected from 15 intervention schools in Texas districts that used Saxon Math in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades between 1993 and 2004. The Texas Education Agency identified 40 potential comparison schools that were similar to the intervention schools based on demographic characteristics including race, ethnicity, poverty, English language proficiency, and percentage of mobile students. Fifteen of the 40 potential schools were randomly selected for the comparison group. Within this group of 30 schools, the author selected three samples of students with multiple cohorts in each sample. This review focuses on Sample 3, which included Cohorts F, G, and H. Cohorts G and H do not meet WWC group design standards; therefore, this review focuses on the analytic sample in Cohort F. Cohort F included data in 20 of the 30 schools, including a total of 2,933 students. The intervention group contained 1,526 students in 10 schools, and the comparison group contained 1,407 students in 10 schools. The study did not report the characteristics of the analytic sample of students in this review, but they did provide information for all students in the study: about 45% were Hispanic, about 40% were Caucasian, about 13% were African American, about 5% were limited English proficient, about 15% were special education status, 49% were female, and about 50% were economically disadvantaged.
Students in the intervention group used Saxon Math as their core math curriculum in grade 6 during the 2003–04 school year. At least 80% of students used Saxon 7/6, and the remainder used Saxon 8/7. The study did not specify which editions of Saxon Math were used. Further information about the level of implementation in study schools was not provided.
The comparison students used core basal math curricula, which typically consist of a chapter-based approach to math instruction. Specific details about how these curricula were implemented in comparison schools are not provided by the authors.
The study does not provide information on the support for implementation. However, intervention schools were already using the Saxon Math curriculum prior to the study.
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