Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., Witonsky, D., Usiskin, Z., & Kaeley, G. (2006). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.
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) Algebra.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UCSMP Problem-Solving and Understanding Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Mostly grade 9, Schools X, Y, & Z;
|
6.57 |
3.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
High School Subject Tests: Algebra |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Mostly grade 9, Schools X, Y, & Z;
|
48.24 |
46.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UCSMP Algebra and Probability Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 9–12, Schools X, Y, & Z;
|
49.80 |
37.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The three high schools (grades 9–12) included in the analytic sample were located on the West Coast, in the Northeast, and in the South. School X was a large, ethnically diverse high school on the West Coast, serving approximately 2,800 students from inner-city and suburban environments; UCSMP Geometry had previously been used at the school. School Y was a suburban high school in the Northeast, serving 950 students from a middle- to upper-middle-class socioeconomic population; no UCSMP curricula were previously used at this school. School Z was a suburban high school of approximately 2,800 in a middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhood in the South and serves a large Hispanic community; no UCSMP curricula were previously used at this school.
School X was a large, ethnically diverse high school on the West Coast. School Y was a suburban high school in the Northeast serving students from a middle- to upper-middle-class socioeconomic population. School Z was a suburban high school in a middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhood in the South and serves a large Hispanic community.
Intervention classes used UCSMP Algebra (second edition, field trial version) during the 1992–93 school year. UCSMP Algebra emphasizes lessons with real-world applications, use of technology (e.g., scientific calculators), spaced introduction of important algebra concepts, integration of non-algebraic mathematic topics (e.g., geometry, data organization, and probability), and the use of reading passages to explain concepts and provide important information.
The comparison classroom in School X used Saxon Math Algebra I: An Incremental Development. In School Y, classrooms used Houghton Mifflin’s Algebra: Structure and Method Book I, and School Z classrooms used Prentice Hall’s Algebra I.
Teachers received the UCSMP text in three sections: chapters 1–4 at the beginning of the school year, chapters 5–8 in November, and chapters 9–13 in early winter. They also were given lesson notes and answers to questions, by chapter, throughout the school year. Teachers met twice with developers to provide feedback, raises issues, and discuss instructional concerns. They did not receive direct in-service training.
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