Hirschhorn, Daniel B. (1993). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, v24 n2 p136-58. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ478386
Reviewed: June 2016
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 University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Multiple Courses.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UCSMP Applications Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Multiple Courses vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 10, sites B & C;
|
21.19 |
16.46 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Mathematics Level 1 Achievement Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Multiple Courses vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 10, sites B & C;
|
492.36 |
489.03 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The analytic sample included in this intervention report consisted of two unnamed sites in affluent suburban areas. Each site included one feeder school in which a subset of the seventh- and eighth-grade students received instruction using UCSMP Transition Mathematics and UCSMP Algebra and one high school in which a subset of students used UCSMP Geometry and UCSMP Advanced Algebra in ninth and tenth grade.
The intervention students used UCSMP for 4 consecutive years, starting in seventh grade and ending in tenth grade. Students used UCSMP Transition Mathematics in 1986–87, UCSMP Algebra in 1987–88, UCSMP Geometry in 1988–89, and UCSMP Advanced Algebra in 1989–90.
Students in the comparison group attended the same high schools and feeder schools as their peers in the intervention group. They used traditional mathematics curricula that corresponded to each of the UCSMP courses. The traditional curricula were published by Addison-Wesley, Merrill, Houghton Mifflin, and unnamed others.
The report did not describe teacher training or implementation support. However, at site B, some of the seventh- and eighth-grade teachers were involved with the UCSMP pilot effort, which meant they had previous experience implementing UCSMP curricula.
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.
Hirschhorn, D. B. (1991). Implementation of the first four years of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project secondary curriculum (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, IL.
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