Peters, K. G. (1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(01), 77A. (UMI No. 9314428).
Reviewed: July 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 Saxon Algebra I.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test |
Saxon Algebra I vs. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra |
9 Months |
Grade 8 (math-talented);
|
95.63 |
95.06 |
No |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in one junior high school in Nebraska. The district borders two large cities (Lincoln and Omaha) and has a mix of students living in rural and suburban locations.
Of the total sample, 56% were female (58% intervention and 53% comparison) and 44% were male (42% intervention and 47% comparison).
Students in the intervention group were taught using Saxon Algebra I (1981) during the 1991–92 school year. Students participated in daily math lessons for one academic year. In each lesson, the teacher introduced a new concept, and students had opportunities to practice the new concept and past concepts. Students were assessed every fifth lesson with study-specific tests of the material covered in the past few sessions.
Students in the comparison group were taught using the UCSMP Algebra curriculum. The UCSMP Algebra program was developed based on National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) objectives that emphasized problem-solving skills, reading comprehension, use of technology, and relevant lessons with real-world applications. Each lesson is organized into an introduction of the concept, a reading section that explains the process, and real-life problem situations.
The primary outcome measure was the Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test.19 This measure was administered as a pretest in August 1991 and as a posttest in May 1992. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
The teacher who taught both study groups did not have prior experience with the intervention or comparison curricula but had read extensively about both instructional approaches. The teacher participated in a 1-week summer workshop on UCSMP Algebra, and in two 1-day workshops given by local consultants on both curricula used in the study. The study author also conducted weekly monitoring to help maintain implementation integrity.
Reviewed: July 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test |
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP) Algebra vs. Saxon Math |
9 Months |
Grade 8 (math talented);
|
95.02 |
95.63 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in one junior high school in Nebraska. The district borders two large cities (Lincoln and Omaha) and has a mix of students living in rural and suburban locations.
Of the total sample, 56% were female (58% intervention and 53% comparison) and 44% were male (42% intervention and 47% comparison).
Students in the intervention group were taught using UCSMP Algebra during the 1991–92 school year. UCSMP Algebra was developed based on National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) objectives. It emphasizes questioning and problem-solving skills, use of technology, use of non-algebraic mathematic topics (e.g., geometry and probability concepts), reading comprehension, and lessons with real-world applications. Lessons are organized into three sections: an introduction of a concept, a reading section with an explanation, and real-life problems.
Students in the comparison group were taught using Saxon Math Algebra I. Students participated in daily lessons from the curriculum for 1 academic year. In each lesson, the teacher introduced a new concept incrementally, and students had opportunities to practice new and past concepts. Each lesson was structured to allow 30 minutes of teacher instruction followed by 30 minutes of practice.
The primary outcome measure is the Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test. The pretest administration occurred in August 1991, and the posttest administration occurred in May 1992. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
The teacher who taught both study groups did not have prior experience with the intervention or comparison curricula, but had read extensively about both teaching formats. The teacher participated in a 1-week summer workshop on UCSMP Algebra, and in two 1-day workshops given by local consultants on both of the curricula used in this study. The author also conducted weekly monitoring to help maintain implementation integrity
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