Schenke, K., Rutherford, T., & Farkas, G. (2014). Computers & Education, 76, 215–224.
Reviewed: July 2020
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: Algebra and Functions (A&F) strand |
ST Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.31 |
11.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: Statistics, Data Analysis, and Probability (SDAP) |
ST Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.32 |
3.25 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: Measurement and Geometry (M&G) strand |
ST Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.64 |
9.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: Number Sense I |
ST Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.74 |
10.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Standards Test: Number Sense II |
ST Math vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.66 |
10.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 89% | |
| White | 5% |
| Hispanic | 85% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 15% |
The study took place in 52 elementary schools in southern California during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years. Schools were eligible to apply for the study if they were in the bottom third of the achievement distribution for the California state standardized test (p. 218).
The analytic sample includes students in grades 3-5 with valid pretest and posttest mathematics assessment data. The study reports the following characteristics for the analytic sample, which includes students in 50 schools: Black: 1.61%; Hispanic: 85.06%; White: 5.13%; Vietnamese: 3.79%; other race/ethnicity: 4.42%; male: 50.75%; free/reduced price lunch: 90.61%; and English learner: 70.17% (Table 1, p. 219).
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) is an instructional program developed by the MIND Research Institute for K-5 mathematics instruction; the authors referred readers to Shaw (1999) for additional details. The program is designed to minimize the need to use language as part of the mathematics instruction and presents students with game-like activities that provide mathematics content relevant to state standards. The games each include multiple mathematics puzzles, and students need to complete at least 80% of the puzzles successfully at one level before moving to the next level. The program is self-paced, though teachers can speed up progress by allowing students to skip levels if they get stuck. The authors report that the practice of skipping levels is not common. Some students did not receive the full ST Math curriculum because they did not progress to the later objectives, while other students received a different ordering of the curriculum (pp. 217, 223).
Students in the comparison group did not use ST Math. The study did not provide any additional information on the type of instruction received by students in the comparison group.
No support for implementation is described in the study.
Reviewed: October 2015
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): Number Sense I (number recognition) |
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-5 grade students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Standards Test (CST): Number Sense II (number operations) |
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-5 grade students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Algebra and Functions (A&F) strand of the California Standards Test |
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-5 grade students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Measurement and Geometry (M&G) strand of the California Standards Test |
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-5 grade students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Statistics, Data Analysis and Probability (SDAP) |
Spatial Temporal Mathematics (ST Math) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-5 grade students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 4% | |
| White | 5% |
| Hispanic | 85% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 15% |
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