Enhanced math instruction adapted to after-school settings produced modest but statistically significant math gains after one year, while enhanced reading instruction showed no differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Elementary students receiving an average of 57 hours of enhanced math instruction had modest but statistically significant improvements in math achievement after one year compared with students in a regular after-school program. → Beckett 2009 q3 i? No differences were found between students who received enhanced reading instruction and those in a regular after-school program. → Beckett 2009 (2)

Evidence¶

Beckett 2009¶

Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Structuring out-of-school time to improve academic achievement: A practice guide (NCEE #2009-012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/10

q3 · i? · review · r2

The IES-sponsored evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs delivered school-day math curricula adapted to after-school settings; students received "an average of 57 hours of enhanced math instruction." The guide prints no effect size, only significance.

"had modest but statistically significant improvements in math achievement after one year compared with students in a regular after-school program."

Beckett 2009 (2)¶

Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Structuring out-of-school time to improve academic achievement: A practice guide (NCEE #2009-012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/10

q3 · i? · review · r2

The same evaluation's reading contrast found no differences versus a regular after-school program; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed.

"No differences were found between students who received enhanced reading instruction and those in a regular after-school program."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In a meta-analysis of 73 after-school programs, the presence of an academic component was the largest predictor of a program producing significant academic improvements — related
• Enhanced Core Reading Instruction improves word-level reading outcomes for first graders compared to control (average effect size +0.24) — related
• Reading Go! tutoring produced significantly positive decoding and word-reading outcomes for low-performing first graders compared to students who did not receive the program — related
• SMART® tutoring produced a statistically significant positive effect on first-graders' word identification after two years of intervention — related
• Fast Track produced a positive, statistically significant effect on reading achievement/literacy after one year, significant on the Spache DRS but not on the Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification subtest — related
• UBMS provides intensive academic instruction in math and science — related
• Adaptive learning showed a statistically significant effect on learning skills but not on building factual knowledge in a meta-analysis of 21 Health & Welfare studies — related
• Among students receiving at least 24 hours of Air Tutors tutoring, no statistically significant long-term effect on statewide math assessments was detected — related
• Intensity of SES services and other provider characteristics are not significantly related to estimated impacts — related