Resendez, M., & Manley, M. A. (2005). Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Reviewed: May 2013
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 Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TerraNova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS): Basic Mulitple Assessment (Math Total) |
Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grades 2 and 4;
|
55.59 |
54.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
TerraNova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS): Basic Mulitple Assessment Plus (Math Computation) |
Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grades 2 and 4;
|
53.89 |
57.49 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 63% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
This study took place in six elementary schools in four states: Kentucky (two suburban schools), Virginia (one urban school), Washington (one urban school), and Wyoming (one rural and one suburban school).
Second- and fourth-grade teachers were randomly assigned within schools to the intervention using Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics. The baseline sample included 35 teachers (18 intervention and 17 comparison) and 742 students (389 intervention and 353 comparison). Of the 35 study teachers, 19 taught second grade (10 intervention and nine comparison) and 16 taught fourth grade (eight intervention and eight comparison). The analysis samples included 35 teachers (18 intervention and 17 comparison). The TerraNova CTBS Basic Multiple Assessment Plus (Math Computation) analysis sample included 491 students (264 intervention and 227 comparison) whereas the TerraNova CTBS Basic Multiple Assessment (Math Total) analysis sample included 624 students (347 intervention and 277 comparison). About one-third of participating students were minorities. At two of the six participating schools, more than 90% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals at the other four schools was similar to the national average of 37%.
Students in the intervention group used the 2004 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics curriculum during the 2004–05 school year. The teachers in the intervention group were implementing the intervention curriculum for the first time. The study authors reported that teachers covered 70% of the curriculum on average.
Students in the comparison group used five different comprehensive math curricula. These curricula are not identified in the study, but the study authors report that the comparison curricula covered the same content as Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics. The study authors reported that teachers covered 75% of the curricula on average.
The primary outcome measure was the CTBS, Basic Multiple Assessment Plus test. The authors describe the TerraNova CTBS as a reliable, standardized test consisting of multiplechoice, constructed response, and computational problems. According to the authors, it offers broad coverage of mathematics content in most textbooks and reflects NCTM standards. The assessment provides two overall scores: the TerraNova CTBS Basic Multiple Assessment (Math Total) and TerraNova CTBS Basic Multiple Assessment Plus (Math Computation) Total. Normal curve equivalent scores were used in the analysis. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Teachers in the intervention group met with a Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics professional trainer for approximately 4 hours prior to implementing the curriculum in their classes. In the initial training session, the trainer described the key components of the curriculum, reviewed the materials provided, offered examples of when to use certain materials, and provided an overview of the math technology available. Two follow-up sessions, approximately 2 hours each, were offered. The first follow-up session occurred 4–8 weeks after teachers began implementation. The second follow-up session was provided to five of the six participating schools and occurred 10–18 weeks after implementation.
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.
Resendez, M., & Sridharan, S. (2005). Technical report: A study on the effectiveness of the 2004 Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Math program. Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
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