Everyday Mathematics effects do not reliably differ by student sex, race, FRPL status, or baseline pretest in the scale-up trial¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Subgroup analyses for sex, Black, Hispanic, FRPL, and continuous pretest subgroups showed no statistically significant differential impacts of EM in either year, apart from the grade subgroup in year 2. → Vaden-Kiernan 2015

Evidence¶

Vaden-Kiernan 2015¶

Vaden-Kiernan, M., Borman, G., Caverly, S., Bell, N., Ruiz de Castilla, V., Sullivan, K., & Rodriguez, D. (2015). Findings from a Multi-Year Scale-Up Effectiveness Trial of Everyday Mathematics. SREE Spring 2015 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567630

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Moderator analyses in the multi-site cluster randomized trial examined student baseline characteristics including gender, race, FRPL status, and baseline math proficiency. Table 3 prints non-significant interaction estimates (e.g., Treatment * Female -0.08 year 1; Treatment * FRPL -2.90 year 1), with no printed effect sizes for these contrasts.

"None of the subgroup analyses (see Table 3) suggested statistically significant differential impacts of EM except for the subgroup by grade in year 2 with positive impacts for fourth grade students."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Everyday Mathematics shows positive differential impacts for fourth grade students in year two of the scale-up trial — related
• Disaggregating by race and income can show aggregate subgroup gaps largely reflect differing subgroup compositions (hypothetical example) — related