“SpringMath is a complete, schoolwide multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) designed to accelerate math achievement for every student in a school. It includes screening and progress monitoring assessments, classwide and individual interventions, automated data interpretation and recommended actions, and a coach dashboard to facilitate effective implementation. SpringMath includes a novel assessment process validated through research, decision trees to automate data interpretation and deliver the right interventions to teachers, evidence-based interventions, and implementation science built into all stages of use.”
In order to try to evaluate the efficacy of Spring Math a systematic search was conducted on the company website, google, and Education Scholar. In total three studies were found. All three studies were of high quality and no studies were excluded from the analysis. All three studies were also evaluated by the National Center on Intensive Intervention. Effect sizes were calculated using a Cohen’s d calculation. In the event that the author or NCII calculated their own effect size, but did not include the raw data, that effect size was accepted at face value.
Overall a mean effect size of .41 was found. In general these studies showed a strong impact on all measures, except for distal assessments. However, effect sizes on distal measures are typically lower and the Spring Math effect size for distal measures was still statistically significant. All three studies were of higher quality, which may have deflated results. The 2012 study especially, was of high quality, as it not only had the highest sample size, but the control group also received equivalent instruction. This is important to note, because most education studies compare a treatment group to a group receiving no treatment. Studies which compare to an equivalent group can be more accurate and usually show lower results.
Interestingly, the 2015 study also found that Spring Math lowered the risk that students were found as non-proficient on state tests by 15%, in comparison to a control group. However, this risk reduction rate increased to 39%, when looking at students identified as having special learning needs. These findings suggest that Spring Math might be especially helpful for students struggling with learning needs. Spring Math is unique from other math programs in that it is both entirely software driven and that it uses MTSS tiered instruction. This is a great addition as multiple meta-analyses have shown tiered instruction produces superior results (Torres 2016, Bagasi 2014, Tran 2011, Burns 2005, and Swanson 2001).
Final Grade: A
-Or 2-3 studies with control groups that showed a mean effect size of .40 or higher, on standardized tests
Qualitative Grade: 8/8
This program includes all essential components.
For more information about our grading system, click here: https://www.teachingbyscience.com/the-math-grading-system
Written by Nathaniel Hansford
Last Edited 2023/02/01
Amanda M. VanDerHeyden & Robin S. Codding | John Hitchcock (Associate Editor) (2015) Practical Effects of Classwide Mathematics Intervention, School Psychology Review, 44:2, 169-190, DOI: 10.17105/spr-13-0087.1
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To- Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research-Implemented Models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406
Codding, R. S., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Martin, R. J., Desai, S., Allard, N., & Perrault, L. (2016). Manipulating Treatment Dose: Evaluating the Frequency of a Small Group Intervention Targeting Whole Number Operations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 31(4), 208–220. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1111/ldrp.12120
J, Hattie. (2022). RTI. Visible Learning, Metax. Retrieved from <https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/influences/view/response_to_intervention>.
Tran, L., Sanchez, T., Arellano, B., & Lee Swanson, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 44(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378447
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A Selective Synthesis of the Experimental Literature on Dynamic Assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002321
Vanderheyden, Amanda & McLaughlin, Tara & Algina, James & Snyder, Patricia. (2012). Randomized Evaluation of a Supplemental Grade-Wide Mathematics Intervention. American Educational Research Journal. 49. 1251-1284. 10.3102/0002831212462736.