|
|
Research
Thirty-eight studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Accelerated Math. None are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards. Three studies (Nunnery & Ross, 2007; Ysseldyke & Bolt, 2007; Ysseldyke & Tardrew, 2007) are randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 35 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens.
Meets evidence standards
No studies meet evidence standards.
Meets evidence standards with reservations
Nunnery and Ross (2007) conducted a quasi-experiment to assess the impact of the School Renaissance program—a comprehensive school reform model, which includes the Accelerated Math program—on the math achievement of students in a suburban Texas school district. Treatment schools implemented the program. Although supplemented by a professional development component known as Math Renaissance, the program’s key math component was Accelerated Math. Math achievement was measured by the Texas Learning Index math scores obtained from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Two treatment middle schools were matched to two comparison middle schools based on the Texas Education Association’s Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS). The AEIS groups each school with 40 similar schools based on their percentage of African-American, Hispanic, White, economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient students as well as student mobility rates as determined by cumulative attendance. From a list of 40 similar schools, the most similar school was matched to the treatment school, with preference given to those schools that did not implement Accelerated Math or other components of School Renaissance. The authors did not describe the existing math curriculum in the treatment or comparison schools. Although the study sample included students in grades 3–8, only students in grades 6–8 are relevant to this review. The analysis sample included 992 students in four middle schools (482 students in two treatment schools and 510 in two comparison schools) in grades 6–8. The findings section reports the effectiveness of the Accelerated Math program for the grade 6–8 cohort.
Ysseldyke and Bolt (2007) conducted a randomized controlled trial with severe attrition. The authors randomly assigned classrooms to treatment and control groups to assess the impact of Accelerated Math on the STAR Math and Terra Nova exams. Principals who had shown interest in Accelerated Math were contacted to participate in the study. Ultimately, Accelerated Math was implemented in eight schools in seven districts in seven states (two schools in Texas and one each in Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina). The study sample included students in grades 2–8, but only those in grades 6–8 are relevant to this review. The middle school analysis sample included more than 450 students in 21 treatment classrooms and approximately 400 students in 19 control classrooms. In middle schools, intact classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Because middle school math teachers taught multiple classes, study teachers taught both Accelerated Math classes (the treatment condition) and traditional classes. Treatment classrooms were assigned to be taught using Accelerated Math as an integrated addition to the existing math curriculum. Control classrooms were assigned to be taught using the existing curriculum without Accelerated Math. In practice, the Accelerated Math program was not implemented for approximately 40% of students in grades 2–8 in the initial treatment sample; the authors did not report the implementation percentage for the middle school analysis sample. The study meets standards with reservations because of a severe overall attrition rate.
Ysseldyke and Tardrew (2007) conducted a classroom matched-pairs quasi-experimental design to assess Accelerated Math’s impact on posttest scores on the STAR Math test. The study was designed for school principals to randomly assign classrooms to treatment or comparison conditions; however, the authors had no control over this process and reported that they had no basis for claiming that random assignment occurred. Thus, the WWC reviewed the study as a quasi-experimental design. The total study included 2,397 students in 125 classrooms in 27 schools in 24 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin). Results are reported by grade for grades 3–6 and in cohorts for students in grades 7–8 and 9–10. The grade 6 sample included 326 students in 17 classrooms (169 students in nine treatment classrooms and 157 students in eight comparison classrooms). The grade 7–8 sample included 149 students in four classrooms (66 students in two treatment classrooms and 83 students in two comparison classrooms).
Extent of evidence
The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that meet WWC evidence standards, with or without reservations.4
The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Accelerated Math to be medium to large for math achievement.
4 The Extent of Evidence Categorization was developed to tell readers how much evidence was used to determine the intervention rating, focusing on the number and size of studies. Additional factors associated with a related concept—external validity, such as the student demographics and the settings in which studies took place—are not taken into account for the categorization. Information about how the extent of evidence rating was determined for Accelerated Math is in Appendix A5.
