|
Guide
to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth |
MATHLETICS
OVERVIEW
Mathletics is an after-school program that targets low-income students attending low-performing schools to help them master prerequisite math skills. A random assignment study found that students’ test scores improved during the first year of the program. There were no additional improvements in the second year of the program.
The Mathletics program is designed to teach prerequisite skills that the students did not master in prior school years. The program was modeled after a gym exercise session. Each lesson begins with a short group warm-up activity, followed by two 15-minute “workouts” focused on individual skill-building, and a final group cool-down activity. Mathletics focuses on five mathematical themes: numbers and operations, measurement, geometry, algebra and functions, and data analysis and probability. Students move through the material at their own rate, and complete pretests and posttests to assess whether they will need additional instruction. The program includes board games, projects, card games, and computer activities to help students grasp the material.
Mathletics focuses on ensuring that its teachers are certified and experienced and establishes a 10:1 student-teacher ratio. Mathletics instructors receive support throughout their involvement with the project. They are provided with all their materials, and receive training and on-site technical assistance. Mathletics teachers are also paid for 30 minutes of preparation time each day. In the random assignment evaluation reported below, 97 percent of Mathletics instructors were certified teachers, and 78 percent had more than four years of teaching experience.
Study 1: Black, A.R., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., Unterman, R., Grossman, J.B., Warner, E. (2008). The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs: Findings After the First Year of Implementation. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20084021.asp>
Approach: Students at participating after-school centers were randomly assigned to either the Mathletics program or the regular after-school program. Mathletics students received special math instruction for 45-60 minutes, 3-4 times per week. Additionally, each student was supposed to meet and work with the teacher at least twice each week. The after-school centers offered Mathletics to students, on average, 95 days throughout the school year, and students attended, on average, 73 days.
SAT 10 test results, after-school staff survey responses and after-school classroom observations provided the information for this study. The responses were examined, categorized, and coded. The number of responses for each code was counted.
Results: The one-year evaluation revealed that Mathletics improved students’ average math score on the SAT 10 test by 2.8 points (effect size = 0.06). The program impacts were also examined separately for second- and third-graders and for fourth- and fifth-graders. The Mathletics program significantly impacted the fourth and fifth grade students, but not the second and third grade students. When comparing students rated as below basic, basic, and proficient in math at baseline, the magnitude of effect was similar for all students, but impacts only reached statistical significance for students rated as basic at baseline (approximately half of the sample). A survey of students’ regular-school-day teachers revealed that enrollment in Mathletics had no significant impacts on whether students were attentive or disruptive in class and did not interfere with homework completion.
Non-experimental analysis of the variation in impacts across after-school centers suggested that results do vary significantly across the after-school centers. Centers meeting adequate yearly progress experienced higher program impacts (p-value – 0.01). Note that these results should be viewed cautiously and do not establish causality.
Evaluated population: The evaluated sample consists of two cohorts. Cohort 1 consisted of students from the first year of the study (see Study 1 above) who had follow up data for at least one year. Cohort 1 had a total of 1,144 students, of whom approximately 40 percent were Black, 27 percent were Hispanic and 26 percent were White. The majority of students (approximately 76 percent) were from low-income families, and approximately 34 percent came from a single-parent household. The students had an average age of 8.6 years.
The Cohort 2 sample consisted of students who applied to the program the second year and were either offered the enhanced program or the regular program, including
Cohort 1 students who were not offered the enhanced program in Year 1 and new applicants. Cohort 2 had a total of 492 students. Approximately 38 percent of the students were Black, 28 percent were Hispanic, and 26 percent were White. Approximately 75 percent of the students were from low-income families, and 33 percent were from single-parent households. Just over half of all students were female.
Approach: This study used the same approach as Study 1 (above). At the end of the first year, Cohort 1 students were randomly assigned a second time to intervention or control. The new Cohort 2 students were also randomly assigned to receive intervention or control. Estimates of the effects of one year of participation were conducted separately for each cohort.
Cohort 1 students that were assigned to the intervention group for both years are compared with Cohort 1 students who were assigned to the control group both years in order to determine the effects of participation in the enhanced program for two consecutive years.
Results: After one year of intervention, students in the intervention condition improved their SAT 10 math scores by an average of 3.5 (cohort 1) or 3.4 (cohort 2) points. This impact was statistically significant for Cohort 1, but only marginally significant for Cohort 2. However, the intervention students from both Cohorts did not significantly differ from each other, so it cannot be concluded that the program was more effective in one year than the other.
Participating in the program for two consecutive years did not improve student’s math scores beyond the one-year impact. The program did not have a significant impact on homework completion, attentiveness, or disruptiveness in class.
Black, A.R., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., Unterman, R., Grossman, J.B., Warner, E. (2008). The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs: Findings After the First Year of Implementation. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20084021.asp>
Black, A.R., Somers, M.A., Doolittle, F., Unterman, R., Grossman, J.B., Warner, E. (2009). The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs: Final Report. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
KEYWORDS: Elementary School, Children (3-11), School-based, Education and Cognitive Development, Skills Training, Mentoring, Tutoring, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Education, Mathematics
Program information last updated 10/18/2011.
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |