The evidence base for Everyday Mathematics® on primary mathematics achievement is small: one study of 3,436 students met WWC standards, and 33 of 34 eligible studies did not meet group design standards¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 34 eligible studies identified, only one quasi-experimental study (Waite, 2000) met WWC group design standards (with reservations); no studies met the standards without reservations. → evidence-base

Evidence¶

evidence-base¶

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2015, November). Primary Mathematics intervention report: Everyday Mathematics®. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/166

q2 · i? · review · r3

The WWC systematic review screened 92 identified studies; 34 were eligible for review against group design standards. Thirty-three eligible studies did not meet WWC group design standards, most commonly because "equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated." The extent of evidence is rated small: one study with 3,436 students in 18 schools.

"The WWC identified 34 eligible studies that investigated the effects of Everyday Mathematics® on mathematics achievement for primary stu-dents. An additional 58 studies were identified but do not meet WWC eligibility criteria for review in this topic area."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Everyday Mathematics® has potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement for primary students, with a substantively important but statistically non-significant effect size of 0.27 — related
• Everyday Mathematics® showed positive effects on TAAS math subtests (Concepts, Operations, Problem Solving) with effect sizes of 0.25 to 0.31 that were not statistically significant after clustering correction — related
• Only three of twelve identified OLI studies met WWC group design standards — related
• Everyday Mathematics and Harcourt Math show no difference in effects on elementary student achievement in Pittsburgh Public Schools — related
• Thirteen of 14 reviewed studies of the program fail WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens, most for lacking comparison-group designs or non-equivalent quasi-experimental groups — related
• Only one of 10 identified studies of InsideTrack© Coaching met WWC group design standards without reservations — related
• The evidence base for Core-Plus Mathematics is small: of 17 reviewed studies, only one met WWC standards (with reservations) and 16 did not meet standards or screens — related
• Only one of seven eligible studies of I CAN Learn® met WWC group design standards, and it met them only with reservations — related