|
|
References for Odyssey Math
Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math protocol or do not meet evidence standards
Brandt, W. C., & Hutchison, C. (2005). Romulus community schools 2002–2005: Summary research and evaluation report. Austin, TX: CompassLearning, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Additional source:
Brandt, W. C., Hutchison, C., & Learning Point Associates. (2006). Romulus community schools comprehensive school reform evaluation. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Clariana, R. (2005). CompassLearning® classrooms of the future: An interim report of one-to-one wireless laptop use in upper elementary mathematics: Let them solo. Austin, TX: CompassLearning, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Clariana, R. (2007). CompassLearning Odyssey® school effectiveness report: Pemberton township school district. Austin, TX: CompassLearning, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2003). Assessment II. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2003). Curricula for CompassLearning®. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2003). Manager I and Manager II. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2004). School effectiveness report: Riverside Middle School, Pendleton, SC. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2004). School effectiveness report: Terrell Middle School, Terrell, TX. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2005). CompassLearning Odyssey® school effectiveness report: Maple Leaf intermediate school. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2005). CompassLearning® school effectiveness report: Daniel Boone area school district. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2006). CompassLearning Odyssey® school effectiveness report: Boone county school district. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2006). CompassLearning Odyssey® school effectiveness report: Lillie Burney elementary school. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2007). Impact of CompassLearning Odyssey Reading/Language Arts & Mathematics on NWEA RIT scores and Lexile range: Akron elementary school. Austin, TX: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2007). Odyssey® school effectiveness report: Washoe county school district. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
CompassLearning, Inc. (2007). Summer school pilot program for third-grade intervention: Tulsa independent school district. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Dembosky, J. W., Pane, J. F., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2006). Data driven decision-making in southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
DiLeo, J. (2007). A study of a specific language arts and mathematics software program: Is there a correlation between usage levels and achievement? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Maddux, C. D. (2005). The web in K–12 education: Is there a future? In J. Blanchard & J. Marshall (Eds.), Web-based learning in K–12 classrooms: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 149–166). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Webb, D. R. (2008). The effects of the Toyota production system on student academic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Wright, W. (2006). Catching up in math? The case of newly arrived Cambodian students in a Texas intermediate school. Texas Association for Bilingual Education Journal, 9(1), 1–22. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
References for Odyssey Classic Math3
Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math protocol or do not meet evidence standards
CompassLearning, Inc. (2003). An independent study done by the Odyssey Charter Middle School (2001–2002). Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Hartley, C. L. (2003). Partnered study two: Comparative study in a large inner city school district in the Midwest, 2001–2002. Austin, TX: CompassLearning, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Additional source:
CompassLearning, Inc. (2003). CompassLearning Report: What Works Clearinghouse. Austin, TX: Author.
Martin, R. L. (2005). Effects of cooperative and individual integrated learning system on attitudes and achievement in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(09A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
