Developing Mathematical Ideas (DMI) is a professional development programme designed to increase teachers’ knowledge of fourth grade (Year 5) maths fractions and rational numbers with the ultimate goal of improving their pupils’ maths achievement.
A study conducted in the 2014–15 school year, prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences by Madhavi Jayanthi and colleagues at Instructional Research Group and REL Southeast, investigated the effects of DMI on teacher content knowledge and their pupils’ subsequent achievement in fractions. A total of 264 fourth grade (Year 5) teachers in 84 elementary (primary) schools in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina in the US were randomly assigned by school to receive either DMI (n=42 schools, 129 teachers) or their usual professional development programme (n=42 schools, 135 teachers). The 84 schools were matched on grade four enrolment, number of pupils who exceeded fourth grade maths standards, percentage of African American and Hispanic pupils and percentage of pupils eligible for free- or reduced-price lunches. In autumn 2014, DMI teachers received eight three-hour training sessions conducted over four days, followed by homework and concluding with a test on fractions. A total of 4,204 fourth grade pupils’ (2,091 E, 2,113 C) baseline scores on third grade standardised tests were used as a pre-test, because most third graders know little about fractions and the Test for Understanding of Fractions was used as the post-test at the end of the academic year to measure their knowledge gain after their teachers had completed DMI.
Results showed no significant differences between either the DMI or non-DMI teachers’ knowledge of fractions and their pupils’ proficiency in fractions.
Source: Impact of the Developing Mathematical Ideas professional development program on grade 4 students’ and teachers’understanding of fractions (March 2017), US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
The Center for Research and Reform in Education in the US has released a new website called Evidence for ESSA, a free web-based resource that provides easy access to information on programmes that meet the evidence standards defined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
The website reviews maths and reading programmes for grades K to 12 (Years 1–13 in the UK) to determine which meet the strong, moderate, or promising levels of evidence defined in ESSA (additional subject areas will be added later). The site provides a one-page summary of each programme, including a programme description, brief research review and practical information on costs, professional development and technology requirements. It is easily searchable and searches can be refined for particular groups (such as pupils with English as an Additional Language) and programme features (such as technology, co-operative learning, or tutoring). Evidence for ESSA directs users to the key studies that validate that a programme meets a particular ESSA standard.
The mission of Evidence for ESSA is to provide clear and authoritative information on programmes that meet the ESSA evidence standards and enable educators and communities to select effective educational tools to improve pupil success.
Source: Evidence for ESSA (www.evidenceforessa.org) The Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University School of Education.
Research published by the Sutton Trust shows that for schools in the UK, the achievement gap in maths, science and reading between the top-performing pupils from low and high socio-economic backgrounds is around two years and eight months.
Global Gaps by Dr John Jerrim of the UCL Institute of Education analyses the 2015 test scores from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) PISA tests to assess how well the top 10% of pupils in the UK’s schools are doing. In England, the highest-achieving pupils score above the median score for OECD countries in maths, science and reading. However, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, high-achieving pupils perform, on average, below the OECD median scores.
For girls in England, the achievement gap in science and reading is even greater. High-achieving girls from low socio-economic backgrounds are around three years behind their more advantaged, high-achieving peers. This is around eight months greater than the equivalent gap for boys for science, and nine months greater for reading. There is no significant gender difference in maths, with an achievement gap of around two years and nine months for both girls and boys.
Source: Global Gaps: Comparing socio-economic gaps in the performance of highly able UK pupils internationally (February 2017), The Sutton Trust
A longitudinal study published in Child Development evaluates an early maths trajectories model for 517 low-income US children from ages 4- to 11-years-old to determine whether children’s maths skills at 4- and 5-years-old predicted their maths achievement at age 11.
Children were tested on six maths skills (patterning, counting objects, comparing quantities, understanding written numbers, calculating and understanding shapes) during their last year of pre-school and near the end of the first grade (Year 2). At the end of the fifth grade (Year 6), they were tested on a range of maths knowledge, including knowledge about numbers, algebra, and geometry.
Bethany Rittle‐Johnson and colleagues found that children’s skills in patterning, comparing quantities and counting objects in pre-school were strong predictors of their maths achievement at age 11. By the end of the first grade (Year2), understanding written numbers and calculating were the strongest predictors of later maths knowledge. Patterning skills remained a predictor, however, shape knowledge was never a unique predictor of later maths achievement.
These results suggest that children’s maths knowledge in pre-school is related to their later achievement; however, not all early achievement is a useful predictor of future performance.
Source: Early math trajectories: low-income children’s mathematics knowledge from ages 4 to 11 (2016) Child Development doi:10.1111/cdev.12662
A new report published by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) analyses data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to look at the impact of disadvantage on children’s performance in England.
Focusing on children’s performance in maths, researchers Rebecca Wheater and colleagues find that:
- The gap between the most and least disadvantaged is equivalent to over three years’ of schooling. This is close to the OECD average.
- The impact of socio-economic background on maths performance in England can be seen from the most to least disadvantaged. Its effects are even greater when comparing differences in achievement between children of high and average socio-economic background than between children of average and low socio-economic background.
- Disadvantaged children who perform better than average, given their socio-economic background, tend to be born in the autumn, are more confident in their abilities and are less likely to play truant.
- The patterns of performance in England have changed little over the years and examination of other countries’ data suggests that they too have found it very difficult to reduce the impact of socio-economic background on performance.
- Many factors other than socio-economic background also affect performance such as student characteristics and the impact of individual schools. These other factors are more important to student performance in England than in other countries.
Source: Is mathematics education in England working for everyone? NFER analysis of the PISA performance of disadvantaged pupils (2016) National Foundation for Educational Research
The Education Endowment Foundation evaluated the impact of the ReflectED programme using a randomised controlled trial involving 1,858 pupils across 30 schools in five areas throughout England over the academic year 2014/15. The evaluation examined the impact on the maths and reading achievement of Year 5 pupils, and also their attitudes toward reading and maths.
The ReflectED programme was developed by Rosendale Primary School to improve pupils’ metacognition — their ability to think about and manage their own learning. This includes the skills of setting and monitoring goals, assessing progress, and identifying personal strengths and challenges.
Year 5 pupils who took part in the trial made an average of four months’ additional progress in maths (ES = +0.30) compared to those in the control groups. The evaluators also found evidence that pupils in the programme developed a more positive attitude toward maths. However, in reading they made two fewer months’ progress than the control group (ES = -0.16) and developed a slightly less positive attitude toward the subject.
The evaluation also found that most schools were already teaching metacognitive and reflective skills similar to those taught in the ReflectED programme, which are likely to have continued in the control group classes. This might have limited the impact that ReflectED had on teachers’ practice and pupils’ outcomes.
Source: ReflectED: Evaluation report and executive summary (2016), Education Endowment Foundation