Everyday Mathematics shows positive differential impacts for fourth grade students in year two of the scale-up trial¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Subgroup analyses by grade in year 2 showed positive impacts for fourth grade students, with a Treatment * High Grade interaction of 2.70 (SE 0.83) and an effect size of 0.39. → 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 · i2 · causal · r2

Subgroup (moderator) analysis within the year-2 cluster randomized trial. Table 3 prints a Treatment * High Grade estimate of 2.70 *** (SE 0.83) with an effect size of 0.39 in year 2, the only significant differential impact; the year-1 interaction was 1.49 (SE 0.83, effect size 0.24) and not significant.

"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¶

Related Claims¶

• Implementation uptake of Everyday Mathematics in treatment schools was low, with only 55% of teachers in year one and 44% in year two implementing the unique and essential components — related
• Everyday Mathematics effects do not reliably differ by student sex, race, FRPL status, or baseline pretest in the scale-up trial — related
• School-level assignment to Everyday Mathematics does not produce a statistically significant impact on elementary students' math achievement relative to business-as-usual control after one or two years of implementation at scale — a broader claim this one bears on