| |
|
Version 1.2
Last updated July 27, 2007
The Best Evidence Encyclopedia
What mathematics programs have
been proven to help middle and high school students
to succeed? To find out, this review summarizes
evidence on three types of programs designed
to improve the mathematics achievement of students
in grades 6-12:
-
Mathematics
curricula (MC), such as The University
of Chicago School Mathematics Project,
Connected Mathematics, Saxon Math, and
other standard and alternative textbooks.
-
Computer
assisted instruction (CAI), such as
Carnegie Learning, I Can Learn, Jostens/Compass
Learning, and Accelerated Math.
-
Instructional
process programs (IP), such as cooperative
learning, mastery learning, and other approaches
primarily intended to change teachers’ instructional
strategies rather than curriculum or textbooks.
Overall, 100 studies met the inclusion
criterion, of which 26 used random assignment
to treatments. These included 38 studies of mathematics
curricula (8 randomized), 39 studies of CAI (9
randomized), and 23 studies of instructional
process programs (5 randomized).
Mathematics Curricula
(MC).
The review found limited evidence that it matters
which textbook is used, at least for student
outcomes on standardized tests. Studies of curricula
supported by the National Science Foundation,
such as The University of Chicago School Mathematics
Project and Connected Mathematics, found small
differences in math achievement in comparison
to control groups on standardized tests, although
they did often show positive effects on tests
aligned with the program (but not with the curriculum
of the control group). Similarly, Saxon Math
and traditional math texts had limited evidence
of effectiveness. Median effect size across 38
studies: +0.07.
Computer Assisted Instruction
(CAI). Studies of CAI find modest
positive achievement outcomes. However, most
qualifying studies evaluated programs that
are no longer available; there are few studies
of current versions of CAI. Median effect
size across 39 studies: +0.16.
Instructional Process
Strategies (IP). The highest-quality
studies and strongest positive effects were
found for instructional process programs, especially
forms of cooperative learning (median ES=+0.32).
Median effect size across 23 studies: +0.21.
Listed below are ratings of currently
available programs. Within categories, programs
are listed in alphabetical order.
An exhaustive search considered
hundreds of published and unpublished articles.
It included those that met the following criteria:
- Schools or classrooms using each
program had to be compared to randomly assigned
or well-matched control groups
- Study duration
had to be at least 12 weeks
- Outcome measures
had to be assessments of the mathematics being
taught in all classes.
Almost all are standardized tests or state
assessments.
- The review placed particular
emphasis on studies in which schools, teachers,
or students
were assigned at random to experimental
or control groups.
Programs were rated according
to the overall strength of the evidence supporting
their effects on math achievement. “Effect
size” (ES) is the proportion of a standard
deviation by which a treatment group exceeds
a control group. Large studies are those involving
a total of at least 10 classes or 250 students.
The categories are as follows:
 |
Strong
Evidence of Effectiveness:
At least one large randomized or randomized
quasi-experimental study, or multiple
smaller studies, with a median effect
size of at least +0.20. A large study
is defined as one in which at least
ten classes or schools, or 250 students,
were assigned to treatments. Smaller
studies are counted as equivalent to
a large study if their collective sample
sizes are at least 250 students. If
randomized studies have a median effect
size of at least +0.20, the total set
of studies need not have a median effect
size this large. |
 |
Moderate
Evidence of Effectiveness:
One large matched study or multiple
smaller studies with a collective sample
size of 250 students, with a median
effect size of at least +0.20. |
 |
Limited
Evidence of Effectiveness:
At least one qualifying study with
a significant positive effect and/or
median ES=+0.10 or more. |
 |
Insufficient
Evidence : Studies show no
significant differences |
| N |
No
Qualifying Studies: No studies
met inclusion standards |
|
For a related What Works Clearinghouse
review of middle school mathematics programs,
click on www.whatworks.ed.gov300
For a related review of elementary mathematics
programs by Slavin & Lake (2006), click on
http://www.bestevidence.org/_images/word_docs/Eff
progs ES math Version 1.2 for BEE 02 09 07.doc
|
|
|
