Claims

Educators tend to perceive meaningful effects of the developers' curricula on student outcomes, but standardized measures tend not to reflect the same level of impact as proximal assessments

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q1 i? Interventionists and classroom teachers tend to perceive meaningful effects of the curricula on student outcomes. → Strand Cary 2013 q1 i? Proximal assessments capture these perceived effects while standardized measures tend not to reflect the same level of impact. → Strand Cary 2013

Evidence

Strand Cary 2013

Strand Cary, M., Doabler, C., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S. K., & Jungjohann, K. (2013). Evaluating the Promise of the FUSION Tier 2 Math Intervention. SREE Spring 2013 Conference. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563132

q1 · i? · causal · r2

Authors' interpretive conclusion drawn from surveys of FUSION interventionists and first-grade classroom teachers across their curriculum development work; no effect sizes or test statistics are printed.

"Interventionists and classroom teachers tend to perceive meaningful effects of our curriculum (i.e., FUSION as well as other mathematics interventions and core curricula we've developed) on student outcomes. Proximal assessments capture these effects, but standardized measures tend not to reflect the same level of impact."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.