Resendez, M., Fahmy, A., & Manley, M. A. (2005). Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, Inc.
Reviewed: May 2017
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 Math.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Learning Index (TAAS) for math |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 7;
|
83.78 |
82.27 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Texas Learning Index (TAAS) for math |
Saxon Math vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6;
|
83.66 |
82.50 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 10% | |
| Other or unknown | 45% | |
| White | 45% |
| Hispanic | 40% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 60% |
The study took place in 25 Texas schools located in rural, suburban, and urban districts. Students in Cohort A (the analytic sample in this review) were in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades in the 1998–99 through 2000–01 school years.
Data were collected from 15 intervention schools in Texas districts that used Saxon Math in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades between 1993 and 2004. The Texas Education Agency identified 40 potential comparison schools that were similar to the intervention schools based on demographic characteristics including race, ethnicity, poverty, English language proficiency, and percentage of mobile students. Fifteen of the 40 potential schools were randomly selected for the comparison group. Within this group of 30 schools, the author selected three distinct samples of students and examined outcomes for multiple cohorts in each sample. This review focuses on Sample 1, which included Cohorts A, B, and C. Cohorts B and C were ineligible for review because they fall within the Secondary Mathematics topic area; therefore, this review focuses on the analytic sample in Cohort A. Cohort A included data for students in 25 of the 30 schools, including a total of 3,054 students. The intervention group contained 1,472 students in 12 schools, and the comparison group contained 1,582 students in 13 schools. The study did not report the characteristics of the analytic sample of students in this review, but they did provide information for all students in the study: about 45% were Caucasian, about 40% were Hispanic, about 10% were African American, about 5% were limited English proficient, about 15% were special education status, about 50% were female, and about 45% were economically disadvantaged. This intervention report considers the outcome in the seventh grade, after the intervention was implemented for 2 consecutive years, as the primary finding for the evidence rating of effectiveness because it is the highest grade in the study that met standards. The outcome in sixth grade is considered a supplemental finding that does not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness. Because some students in the grade 8 analytic sample used Saxon Algebra I, the outcome measure using this sample is ineligible for review under the Primary Mathematics topic area; therefore, only outcomes in grades 6 and 7 are eligible for this review.
Students in the intervention group used Saxon Math as their core math curriculum in grades 6 and 7 during the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 school years. In the sixth grade, at least 80% of students used Saxon Math 7/6 as their core math curriculum; in the seventh grade, at least 80% used Saxon Math 8/7. The remaining students used the Saxon curriculum at the next grade level. The study did not specify which editions of Saxon Math were used. Further information about the level of implementation in study schools was not provided.
Students in the comparison schools used core basal math curricula, which typically consist of a chapter-based approach to math instruction. Specific details about how these curricula were implemented in comparison schools are not provided by the authors.
The study does not provide information on the support for implementation. However, intervention schools were already using the Saxon Math curriculum prior to the study.
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