WWC comparison of elementary math programs

photo © 2011 Caroline (via: Wylio)
"The study examined the relative effectiveness of four early elementary school math curricula: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space; Math Expressions; Saxon Math; and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics.
The study analyzed data on more than 8,000 first- and second-grade students in 110 schools in 12 districts in 10 states....

more info
For first graders, the authors found no statistically significant differences in student math achievement among the curricula after adjusting results for multiple curricula comparisons within the same analysis.

For second graders, one difference was statistically significant after taking multiple curricula comparisons into account. Second-grade students attending Saxon Math schools scored 0.17 standard deviations higher than students attending Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics schools, roughly equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 57th percentile in math achievement."
Additional information about the programs studied is here:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/QRReport.aspx?QRId=170

Ethnicity and reward structure effects on learning

The greatest benefits on learning for African American students were seen when students in small groups were asked to help each other (communal learning, no reward condition); whereas, the greatest increase in learning for white students (also working in small groups) occurred in response to offers of reward for individual performance. The study met WWC evidence standards:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/QRReport.aspx?QRId=136
The original study citation is:
Hurley, E. A., Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (2009). Culture and the interaction of student ethnicity with reward structure in group learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 121–146.

Want to increase college enrollment?

photo © 2010 Kristin Wall | more info (via: Wylio)
A study that looked at both independent adults and dependent students (ages 15 - 30 in low to moderate SES groups) found that providing information about and assistance with completing forms for federal financial aid had positive effects on the numbers of people applying for aid, the numbers receiving aid, and the numbers enrolling in college. For specifics, see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/QRReport.aspx?QRId=142

IES publishes practice guide on Improving Reading Comprehension: K -3

A new guide from the Institute for Education Sciences is now available: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf
 An addendum (9/30/10): Here is a summary from the introduction: "....presents a set of evidence-based practices that teachers and other educators can use to successfully teach reading comprehension
to young readers." A record for this report has also been added to the UNLV Libraries catalog.

Phonics based reading program shows potential

"Sound Partners (Vadasy et al., 2004) is a phonics-based tutoring program that provides supplemental reading instruction to elementary school students grades K–3 with below average reading skills. The program is designed specifically for use by tutors with minimal training and experience." According to the WWC's examination of 7 studies that met evidence standards (with or without reservation), "Sound Partners was found to have positive effects on alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension and no discernible effects on general reading achievement on beginning readers." A tabular summary of the results is here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/sound_partners/

KIPP Middle Schools show positive results

According to this quick review fromt he What Works clearinghouse, charter schools using the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) showed favorable gains in math and reading skills when matched with students in public schools. The brief report is here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/QRReport.aspx?QRId=159

WWC reviews adolescent literacy interventions

What Works Clearinghouse reviewed five adolescent literacy intereventions. Summary findings and links to the reports are below:

Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID): The WWC reviewed 66 studies that investigated the effects of AVID on adolescent learners. "One study of AVID that falls within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations...AVID was found to have no discernible effects on comprehension for adolescent learners." http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/avid/

Corrective Reading: A total of 129 studies reviewed by the WWC examined the effects of Corrective Reading on adolescent learners' alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension. "One study of Corrective Reading that falls within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards...Corrective Reading was found to have no discernible effects on the alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension domains for adolescent learners." http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/corrective_reading/

Reading Plus®: The WWC reviewed 18 studies..."One study of Reading Plus^® that falls within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards with reservations...Reading Plus^® was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension for adolescent learners." http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/reading_plus/

Reciprocal teaching: The WWC reviewed 164 studies that investigated the effects of reciprocal teaching on adolescent learners.  "Five studies of reciprocal teaching that fall within the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, and one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations...Reciprocal teaching was found to have mixed effects on comprehension for adolescent learners." http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/rec_teach/

Book clubs:  The WWC identified 284 studies of book clubs for adolescent learners (1989-2009). All studies either fell outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or did not meet WWC evidence standards. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/book_clubs/

WWC review of "Accelerated Reader" effectiveness

 This brief summary from IES is remarkable for at least a couple of reasons. First, of 318 studies reviewed, only two met their evidence standards (one with reservations)! Second, this is such a widely used program and yet they found "no discernible effects"... Hmmm

"The Accelerated Reader™ guided reading intervention uses reading practice and computerized quizzes to supplement regular K–12 reading instruction. The WWC reviewed 318 studies on Accelerated Reader™. One study, a randomized controlled trial, meets WWC evidence standards. A second study, a quasi-experimental design, meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The two studies include 2,877 students in grades 4 to 8 in Oregon and Texas. Based on these studies, the WWC found the Accelerated Reader™ to have no discernible effects on reading fluency or comprehension for adolescent learners. Read the full WWC report now at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/adolescent_literacy/accel_read/"

Mixed results for "Literacy Express"

Literacy Express is a preschool curriculum designed for three- to five-year-old children. It is structured around units on oral language, emergent literacy, basic math, science, general knowledge, and socioemotional development.
Three studies of Literacy Express that fall within the scope of the Early Childhood Education review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The three studies include 1,004 preschool children from three to five years of age from 70 preschools...
Literacy Express was found to have positive effects on oral language, print knowledge, and phonological processing and no discernible effects on cognition and math for preschool children.

Summary and links to intervention report and technical appendices are here:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/early_ed/lit_express/

Dialogic reading shows promise with children with disabilities

"Dialogic reading is an interactive shared picture-book reading practice designed to enhance young children’s language and literacy skills. During the shared reading practice, the adult and the child switch roles so that the child learns to become the storyteller with the assistance of the adult, who functions as an active listener and questioner.
Two studies of dialogic reading that fall within the scope of the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The two studies included 52 students with language delays, from ages three to six, participating in early childhood programs in the Pacific Northwest.³ Both studies examined intervention effects on children’s communication and language competencies...
Dialogic reading was found to have potentially positive effects on communication and language competencies for children with disabilities."

The 2 studies meeting WWC criteria are:
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 28–39.
Dale, P. S., Crain-Thoreson, C., Notari-Syverson, A., & Cole, K. (1996). Parent-child book reading as an intervention technique for young children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 16(2), 213–235.

Links to study descriptions are here:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/ece_cd/dialogic_reading/#go_3

WWC adds new topic area: Students with Learning Disabilities

The Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse (the arbiter of what is good research in education ;-) has added a new Topic Area. According to their recent newsletter, "WWC is now conducting reviews of research on interventions that focus on students who have learning disabilities. This new topic area aims to help educators make important decisions about curriculums [sic], supplemental products, and classroom methods....it is often difficult to identify research-based interventions—whether those are programs, products, or practices—that have shown to be effective specifically for these students. The WWC will evaluate research on curricula and instructional strategies that are intended to improve achievement for students with learning disabilities in grades K–12 and provide educators with insight on these important questions:

• Which interventions improve achievement in reading, writing, math, science, or social studies? Which promote student progress?
• Are some interventions especially effective for certain subgroups of students with learning disabilities—students of different ages, for example, or students with particular learning disabilities, students of specific racial/ethnic groups, or English language learners?"

Computerized math instruction beats out traditional classroom

A new study reported by the What Works Clearinghouse found that, "at the end of the school year students in classrooms using 'I Can Learn' scored higher onthe assessment of pre-algebra and algebra skills than students in traditional math classrooms. The growth was equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 57th percentile."
The study met WWC evidence standards and the full report is linked here.

Evaluation of primary grade math programs

The What Works Clearinghouse rarely finds that research meets their evidence standards and even when they do, there are seldom significant results, so this seemed worth passing along.

"This quick review looks at a study that examined the relative effectiveness of four widely used early elementary school math curricula: Investigations in Number, Data and Space; Math Expressions; Saxon Math; and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. The study authors reported that first graders attending schools assigned to the Math Expressions and Saxon Math curricula scored significantly higher on math assessments than students attending schools assigned to the Investigations in Number, Data and Space or the Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. The WWC's assessment of this study determined that the research described in this report is consistent with WWC evidence standards. The study is a well-implemented randomized controlled trial.To view the full report please visit:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/QRReport.aspx?QRID=117

WWC evaluation of READ 180 program

What Works Clearinghouse seldom reports out studies that meet their evidence standards, so when they find some that meet standards, even with reservations, I do pay attention. Here is a brief description of this program and a link to the page with a brief chart and links to the full report.

"READ 180 is a reading program designed for students in elementary through high school whose reading achievement is below the proficient level. The goal of READ 180 is to address gaps in students’ skills through the use of a computer program, literature, and direct instruction in reading skills. The software component of the program aims to track and adapt to each student’s progress. In addition to the computer program, the READ 180 program includes workbooks designed to address reading comprehension skills, paperback books for independent reading, and audiobooks with corresponding CDs for modeled reading.

No studies of READ 180 meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards,² but seven studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The seven studies included 10,638 students, ranging from grade 4 to grade 9, who attended elementary, middle, and high schools in Arizona, California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.³

Based on these seven studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for READ 180 to be medium to large for comprehension and general literacy achievement. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of READ 180 in the alphabetics or reading fluency domains."

Some positive results for the REDI program

The What Works Clearinghouse found this study met evidence standards and reports the findings.
This study examined whether the Head Start Research-based Developmentally Informed (REDI) program is more effective than the standard Head Start program at improving the language, emergent literacy, and social-emotional skills of preschoolers.
The study finds that students in the REDI group outperformed control students on one of three measures of language development (effect sizes ranged from –0.07 to 0.15) and two of three measures of emergent literacy skills (effect sizes ranged from 0.16 to 0.39).
In addition, REDI program students exhibited greater understanding of emotions, better social problem-solving skills, and higher levels of learning engagement than students in regular Head Start classrooms.

WWC assessment of "I Can Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra" programs

Will wonders never cease! It's SO rare that any research studies ever meet WWC evidence standards that there usually isn't much to report. Here is what they say about these programs:

"One study of I CAN Learn^®Pre-Algebra and Algebra meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and four studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The five studies included 16,519 eighth-grade students from middle schools in California, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.³

Based on these five studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for I CAN Learn^®Pre-Algebra and Algebra to be medium to large for math achievement."

Links to the full evaluation report are here:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/middle_math/iclprea/

"Content first" teaching improves understanding of science concepts

As you may or may not know, the What Works Clearinghouse has a rigorous set of criteria for quantitative studies to meet their "evidence standards." Apparently this study did, and the results may offer a useful approach for teaching science concepts.

"...a review of the article "Teaching Science as a Language: A Content-First Approach to Science Teaching". This study examined whether teaching scientific concepts using everyday language before introducing scientific terminology improves the understanding of these concepts."

Meta-analysis of Reading Recovery studies

The What Works Clearinghouse recently reviewed 28 studies utililizing the Reading Recovery program, "a short-term tutoring intervention intended to serve the lowest-achieving (bottom 20%) first-grade students," conducted since 2005.

Here are their conclusions:

"Four studies of Reading Recovery^® meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, and one study meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The five studies included approximately 700 first-grade students in more than 46 schools across the United States.³

Based on these five studies, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for Reading Recovery^® to be medium to large for alphabetics, small for fluency and comprehension, and medium to large for general reading achievement."

The overview of their review and links to the full report and appendices are here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/reading_recovery/

WWC report on Early Intervention Reading (EIR) program

Not many studies meet the evidence criteria for WWC. Only one study looking at EIR did and here are excerpts from the summary findings.

"Early Intervention in Reading (EIR)^® is a program designed to provide extra instruction to groups of students at risk of failing to learn to read. The program uses picture books to stress instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and contextual analysis, along with repeated reading and writing. In grades K, 1, and 2, the program is based on whole-class instruction, with additional small group instruction provided to struggling readers. In grades 3 and 4, the program consists of small group instruction for 20 minutes, four days a week. Teachers are trained for nine months using workshops and an Internet-based professional development program.

Research

One study of EIR^® meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards...

Based on this one study, the WWC considers the extent of evidence for EIR^® to be small for alphabetics and comprehension. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of EIR^® in the fluency or general reading achievement domains.

Effectiveness

EIR^® was found to have potentially positive effects on alphabetics and comprehension."

Links to other parts of the report are here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/eir/index.asp

Summary of recent WWC reports

Perhaps the What Works Clearinghouse should be called the "What Works and What Doesn't Clearinghouse." Of course it does not roll quite so trippingly off the tongue, but what distinguishes WWC from other publication & information venues is that they publish results of what was not found or supported. This is of course closely tied to whether or not you agree to their criteria for what works and what doesn't :-) Here is a rundown of recent reports:

Practice Guides!
- Dropout Prevention
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/#dp_pg
- Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/#adlit_pg
- Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/#turning_pg

Intervention Reports in the Following Topic Areas!

Beginning Reading:
- Reading Mastery
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/rdgmastery/
- Open Court Reading(c)
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/open_court/
- Houghton Mifflin Reading(c)
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/houghton/

Early Childhood Education:
- Breakthrough to Literacy
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/early_ed/btl/

Dropout Prevention:
- Accelerated Middle Schools
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/ams/
- New Century High Schools Initiative
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout/new_century/

Middle School Math:
- Mathematics in Context - http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/middle_math/math_context/

Quick Reviews!
- Abstract Examples in Learning Math Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/abmath/
- Arkansas Teacher Performance-Pay Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/littlerock/
- Board Games and Numeracy Skills Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/boardgames/
- Los Angeles Charter School Performance Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/charterschool/
- Sixth Grade in Middle School Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/sixthgrademiddle/
- Student Incentives in Charter Schools Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/payforas/
- Teach For America Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/tfa/
- Texas Advanced Placement Incentive Program Study
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/texasapip/