Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis

Abstract

This article reviews research on the achievement outcomes of three types of approaches to improving elementary mathematics: mathematics curricula, computer-assisted instruction (CAI), and instructional process programs. Study inclusion requirements included use of a randomized or matched control group, a study duration of at least 12 weeks, and achievement measures not inherent to the experimental treatment. Eighty-seven studies met these criteria, of which 36 used random assignment to treatments. There was limited evidence supporting differential effects of various mathematics textbooks. Effects of CAI were moderate. The strongest positive effects were found for instructional process approaches such as forms of cooperative learning, classroom management and motivation programs, and supplemental tutoring programs. The review concludes that programs designed to change daily teaching practices appear to have more promise than those that deal primarily with curriculum or technology alone.

Preventive Support for Kindergarteners Most At-Risk for Mathematics Difficulties: Computer-Assisted Intervention

“…There are also suggestions that a well-planned adaptive practice is able to identify children's strengths and weaknesses as well as fill their individual gaps (Fuchs, 2005;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012), also when offered in computerized format (Hasselbring, 1986;Slavin & Lake, 2008). Hence, it seems reasonable to offer specific number skill training for kindergarteners most at-risk for MD, especially because it is known that early difficulties tend to be very persistent within this group (e.g., Geary et al, 2008;Morgan et al, 2009;Murphy et al, 2007).…”

“…The effectiveness of CAI has been difficult to establish in research literature due to varying study designs, target group definitions, and reports of the content being practiced (e.g., Räsänen et al, 2009;Seo & Bryant, 2009;Slavin & Lake, 2008). For this reason, concerning children in primary grades, Räsänen et al (2009) were able to calculate effect sizes for only five CAI studies in which pre-and post-test scores with standard deviations for both intervention and control groups were reported.…”

“…Li and Ma (2010) recently concluded that computer technology is more effective with regard to mathematics achievement in special needs students than in general education students. As Slavin and Lake (2008) summarized, a reasonable use of computers can provide mathematics exercises tailored to individual needs, and adaptive software can identify child's strengths and weaknesses to fill possible gaps. These findings are consistent with other meta-analyses and reviews in which low achievers and at-risk learners progressed more than other students when computer-assisted intervention (CAI) was used (e.g., Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003;Kulik & Kulik, 1991;Räsänen, Salminen, Wilson, Aunio, & Dehaene, 2009).…”

“…For this reason, concerning children in primary grades, Räsänen et al (2009) were able to calculate effect sizes for only five CAI studies in which pre-and post-test scores with standard deviations for both intervention and control groups were reported. Seo and Bryant (2009) also faced several methodological problems in analyzing the effects of CAI studies in children with learning disabilities (see also Cheung & Slavin, 2013;Slavin & Lake, 2008).…”

Improving procedural and conceptual mathematics outcomes: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya

“…Reviews of programmes in the USA (Slavin and Lake 2007) and South Africa (Fleisch and Schöer 2014) indicate that focus on instructional change is most likely to have positive outcomes (Slavin and Lake 2007;Staub and Stern 2002). Research in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that to support teacher learning, modelling and teacher coaching are necessary (Schwille and Dembélé 2007;UNESCO 2012;UNESCO and CASTME 2001).…”