Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

This article reviews research on the achievement outcomes of elementary mathematics programs; 87 rigorous experimental studies evaluated 66 programs in grades K–5. Programs were organized in six categories. Particularly positive outcomes were found for tutoring programs (effect size [ES] = +0.20, k...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:AERA open 2021-01, Vol.7 (1)
Main Authors: Pellegrini, Marta, Lake, Cynthia, Neitzel, Amanda, Slavin, Robert E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Benchmarking
Classroom Techniques
Cooperative learning
Curricula
Effect Size
Elementary School Students
Faculty Development
Instructional Effectiveness
Mathematics
Mathematics Curriculum
Mathematics Education
Mathematics Teachers
Meta Analysis
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Professional development
Research Reports
Teaching Methods
Tutoring
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article reviews research on the achievement outcomes of elementary mathematics programs; 87 rigorous experimental studies evaluated 66 programs in grades K–5. Programs were organized in six categories. Particularly positive outcomes were found for tutoring programs (effect size [ES] = +0.20, k = 22). Positive outcomes were also seen in studies focused on professional development for classroom organization and management (e.g., cooperative learning; ES = +0.19, k = 7). Professional development approaches focused on helping teachers gain in understanding of mathematics content and pedagogy had little impact on student achievement. Professional development intended to help in the adoption of new curricula had a small but significant impact for traditional (nondigital) curricula (ES = +0.12, k = 7), but not for digital curricula. Traditional and digital curricula with limited professional development, as well as benchmark assessment programs, found few positive effects.
ISSN:2332-8584
2332-8584
DOI:10.1177/2332858420986211