Effects of the First Year of a Three-Year CGI Teacher Professional Development Program on Grades 3-5 Student Achievement: A Multisite Cluster-Randomized Trial. Research Report No. 2018-25
Schoen, Robert C.; LaVenia, Mark; Tazaz, Amanda M. (2018). Online Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599649
-
examining1,683Students, grades3-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed elementary mathematics student assessment |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 31 schools in nine public school districts in central and northern Florida. The study focused on grades 3–5 mathematics instruction.
Study sample
The study included grades 3–5 mathematics teachers who volunteered to participate. Researchers randomly assigned 149 teachers to conditions: 69 teachers to the intervention group and 80 teachers to the comparison group. The study analyzed results for 1,683 students in grades 3–5 who had scores on both the fall 2015 and spring 2016 assessments. The study did not provide enough student demographic information to summarize the full student sample.
Intervention Group
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) is a professional development approach that helps teachers learn about students’ mathematical thinking and use that understanding to guide instruction. This study examined a version of the program for grades 3–5 mathematics teachers. CGI was intended to help teachers notice students’ mathematical ideas and use those observations when planning and adjusting instruction. In this study, teachers in the intervention group were offered the first year of a 3-year CGI program, which included 9 days of workshops for a total of 59 hours. Workshop content focused on upper-elementary number and operations topics, with particular attention to multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, and equality. Teachers learned to use frameworks for understanding types of mathematics problems and common ways students solve them. Teachers also received and discussed professional books, interviewed students, practiced interpreting students’ strategies, and participated in classroom-embedded days in which they examined students’ learning needs, planned or observed a lesson, and reflected on the experience. CGI was not a scripted curriculum. Teachers used what they learned alongside their existing instructional materials and remained responsible for planning mathematics lessons.
Comparison Group
Comparison teachers received the mathematics instruction and professional development normally available in their schools. They could attend the CGI program later, after the study’s outcome data had been collected. Comparison teachers reported an average of 14.7 hours of mathematics professional development during the study. The professional development they described varied across school districts and included school district mathematics professional development, professional learning communities, and named programs such as Kagan strategies, Go Math!, Big Rocks, CPALMS, Number Talks, Acaletics, and Marzano.
Support for implementation
The CGI program and workshops were developed and delivered by Teachers Development Group. To support participation in CGI, teachers in the intervention group received a stipend for workshop days that occurred outside their regular paid workdays, and school districts were reimbursed for substitute teachers on workshop days that occurred during instructional time. Teachers who traveled more than 50 miles to attend workshops were offered support for travel costs. Teachers also received in-service credit and program materials, including a binder and two books. The study did not report additional training or support for the CGI workshop instructors.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Robert C. Schoen; Mark LaVenia; Amanda M. Tazaz; Russell Gersten; Keith Smolkowski. (2024). Effects of a Mathematics Teacher Professional Development Program on Grades 3-5 Student Achievement: A Multisite Cluster-Randomized Trial. Elementary School Journal, v125 n2 p322-346.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized control trial with cluster level inferences and joiners, but it demonstrates baseline equivalence.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Elementary Mathematics Student Assessment (EMSA) |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
In central and northern Florida, 149 third-fifth grade teachers from 32 public schools (drawn from nine school districts) participated in this study.
Study sample
The study report did not include information about proportion of students who were male vs. female, or information about race/ethnicity of the students in the sample. The authors reported that the study sample was typical of public elementary schools in central and northern Florida, however, the authors did not provide the proportion of students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, or English language learners, or had individual education plans.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the intervention group participated in a professional development program on how to implement Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) in their classrooms to improve mathematics achievement. In grades 3-5, the CGI program focused on two research-based frameworks which help teachers to elicit children's thinking about the structure of a mathematical problem and strategies on how to solve those problems. Teachers learn how to use information about students' reasoning and developmental process to help them understand fractions, fraction operations, whole number multiplication and division, and base ten concepts for whole numbers and decimals. The professional development program occurred for five consecutive 7-hour days in summer 2015, two consecutive 6-hour days in fall 2015, and two consecutive 6-hour days in winter 2015.
Comparison Group
The comparison group implemented business-as-usual practice during the study period, and were invited to participate in the intervention once the study period was completed.
Support for implementation
The CGI professional development program was delivered by certified CGI instructors under the direction of Dr. Linda Levi, who co-authored the CGI curriculum in several books.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).