RM-CC5 treatment teachers shifted toward one-on-one instruction with individual students, while control teachers led more whole-group and small-group instruction¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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.
q2 i? Treatment teachers reported one-on-one instruction on a mean of 49.9% of total log days versus 27.0% in the control group (t = 12.3, p < .0001). → Nicole Shechtman 2019
Evidence¶
Nicole Shechtman 2019¶
Nicole Shechtman, Jeremy Roschelle, Mingyu Feng, Corinne Singleton. (2019). An Efficacy Study of a Digital Core Curriculum for Grade 5 Mathematics. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419850482
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Exploratory RQ3 analysis of daily teacher implementation logs (average 13.4 vs. 13.3 logs per teacher; 100% vs. 87.9% completion) comparing interaction structures across groups. The article also reports control teachers led more whole-group instruction (39.0% vs. 11.7%, t = 17.7, p < .0001) and small-group work (29.5% vs. 15.5%, t = 8.8, p < .0001).
"In the treatment group, teachers reported greater frequency of one-on-one instruction with individual students (mean of 49.9% of total log days vs. 27.0% in the control group, t = 12.3, p < .0001)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Assigning schools to use RM-CC5 as their core Grade 5 mathematics curriculum for a full year did not significantly change state assessment achievement compared with business-as-usual schools — related
- Treatment classrooms used technology far more intensively than control classrooms, whose technology use remained supplemental — related
- The authors interpret the null result as partly reflecting a tension between adaptive mastery learning and curricular coverage: students who master early topics slowly may not reach later topics tested by the state assessment — related
- RM-CC5 usage metrics correlated positively with achievement, and together accounted for an additional 7.3% of variance in Grade 5 scores beyond prior achievement, though causality and relative contributions could not be inferred — related
- Whole-group instruction was the most common grouping structure in elementary resource-room reading instruction despite small class sizes — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rm-cc5-teacher-role-shift-one-on-one |
title |
RM-CC5 treatment teachers shifted toward one-on-one instruction with individual students, while control teachers led more whole-group and small-group instruction |
description |
RM-CC5 treatment teachers shifted toward one-on-one instruction with individual students, while control teachers led more whole-group and small-group instruction |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — nicole-shechtman-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.