169
Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics in Context on Student Performance Classroom Achievement for Mathematics in Context Classrooms for1997-1998 (Technical Report #33) Thomas Romberg, David Webb, and Lorene Folgert, University of Wisconsin-Madison Mary Shafer, Northern Illinois University Romberg, T. A., Webb, D.C., Folgert, L., & Shafer, M.C. (2003) Classroom achievement for Mathematics in Context classrooms for 1997-1998. (Mathematics in Context Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study Tech. Rep. No. 33). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. The research reported in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation #REC-9553889 and #REC-0087511 and by the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Northern Illinois University. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics in Context on Student Performance

Classroom Achievement for Mathematics in Context Classrooms for1997-1998

(Technical Report #33)

Thomas Romberg, David Webb, and Lorene Folgert, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Mary Shafer, Northern Illinois University

Romberg, T. A., Webb, D.C., Folgert, L., & Shafer, M.C. (2003) Classroom achievement for Mathematics in Context classrooms for 1997-1998. (Mathematics in Context Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study Tech. Rep. No. 33). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

The research reported in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation #REC-9553889 and #REC-0087511 and by the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Northern Illinois University. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Page 2: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Introduction

The purposes of the longitudinal/cross-sectional study of the impact of Mathematics in Context (MiC; National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education & Freudenthal Institute, 1997–1998) on student performance are (a) to determine the mathematical knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and levels of student performance as a consequence of studying MiC for over three years; and (b) to compare student knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and levels of performance of students using MiC with those using conventional mathematics curricula. The research model for this study is an adaptation of a structural model for monitoring changes in school mathematics (Romberg, 1987). For this study, information is being gathered on 14 variables over a 3-year period for three groups of students (those in Grades 5, 6, and 7 in 1997). The variables have been organized in five categories (prior, independent, intervening, outcome, and consequent). (See Figure 1 for variables and hypothesized relationships.)

Student Background

Social Context

Teacher Background

Support Environment

Teacher Knowledge

Teacher Professional

Responsibility

Classroom Events

Pedagogical Decisions

Knowledge andUnderstanding

Application

Attitudes

Further Pursuits Student

Pursuits

Prior Independent Intervening Outcome Consequent

Curricular Content and

Materials

Figure 1. Revised model for the monitoring of school mathematics.

2

Page 3: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Overview The data in this Technical Report contain the general results for the eight grade-level-by-year studies shown as white ellipses in Figure 2. The summary data has been derived from each student’s weighted item scores on the Classroom Achievement Index (CA) (see Appendix A).

Grade 7Grade 7

Cross-Grade

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 6

Grade 8

Grade 7

Grade 8

Cross-Year

Cross-Year

Cross-Year

Cross-Grade

Cross-Grade

L o n g i t u d i n a l

L o n g i t u d i n a l

L o n g i t u d i n a l

1 9 9 7 - 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 8 - 1 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 Figure 2. Sources of Data and Planned Comparisons of the MiC Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study

In each case the summary data has been displayed in terms of Tables that include the number of students, mean, standard deviation, both lower and upper 95% confidence intervals, and score distributions for the 95%tile, 75%tile, 25%tile, and 5%tile, then a Progress Map has been constructed to portray that data.1

The following Tables and Maps have been organized in terms of each of the eight year-by-grade studies. Within each study the data on student performance is then organized first across all districts, second for each district separately, and then by teachers within districts.

1 Progress Maps were not made if N < 10.

3

Page 4: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Grade 5 All Districts

Table 1.5.1 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 448 255.2 43.7 251.1 259.2 330.7 281.6 228.5 185.0

Male 229 257.1 45.7 251.2 263.0 336.1 284.4 228.5 185.0Female 219 253.1 41.6 247.6 258.6 324.8 278.7 224.5 185.0

White 215 268.2 43.7 262.4 274.1 338.3 298.5 239.8 194.8African-American 50 229.4 35.0 219.7 239.1 265.4 253.9 196.3 175.1Hispanic 96 238.4 34.4 231.5 245.3 296.4 263.5 211.5 185.0Other 87 256.1 45.1 246.7 265.6 333.6 284.4 224.5 186.9

Number 448 256.8 45.0 252.6 260.9 332.2 286.9 227.7 181.4Algebra 448 258.1 46.4 253.8 262.4 320.0 293.4 225.0 184.1Geometry 448 251.9 46.1 247.6 256.1 318.6 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 448 249.8 48.8 245.2 254.3 332.5 282.8 213.7 166.5

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

4

Page 5: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 2. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 448 N = 229 N = 219 N = 215 N = 50 N = 96 N = 87 N = 448 N = 448 N = 448 N = 448

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

by Content Strand

5

Page 6: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.2 MiC Classroom Achievement, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by District

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 448 255.2 43.7 251.1 259.2 330.7 281.6 228.5 185.0

District 1 153 266.9 44.6 259.8 274.0 337.5 301.3 236.4 191.2District 2 168 235.0 37.2 229.4 240.7 298.5 258.1 210.3 174.4District 3 127 267.6 41.0 260.5 274.8 342.7 284.4 241.5 208.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

6

Page 7: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 448 N = 153 N = 168 N = 127

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 All District 1 District 3District 2

Figure 3. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by District

7

Page 8: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.3 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Male 229 257.1 45.7 251.2 263.0 336.1 284.4 228.5 185.0Female 219 253.1 41.6 247.6 258.6 324.8 278.7 224.5 185.0

District 1Male 80 266.6 47.1 256.3 277.0 337.5 301.3 232.4 190.9

Female 73 263.6 52.0 251.7 275.4 333.4 298.5 243.2 194.3District 2

Male 84 236.5 39.3 228.1 244.9 298.5 258.8 210.3 173.0Female 84 233.6 35.1 226.1 241.1 289.7 258.1 210.3 178.8

District 3Male 65 272.1 42.3 261.8 282.3 346.4 284.4 243.2 212.4

Female 62 263.0 39.4 253.2 272.8 340.0 283.7 236.4 206.7

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

8

Page 9: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 229 N = 219 N = 80 N = 73 N = 84 N = 84 N = 65 N = 62

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All District 1 District 2 District 3

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Figure 4. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender

9

Page 10: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.4 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

White 215 268.2 43.7 262.4 274.1 338.3 298.5 239.8 194.8African American 50 229.4 35.0 219.7 239.1 265.4 253.9 196.3 175.1

Hispanic 96 238.4 34.4 231.5 245.3 296.4 263.5 211.5 185.0Other 87 256.1 45.1 246.7 265.6 333.6 284.4 224.5 186.9

District 1White 79 283.7 38.9 275.1 292.3 337.5 309.8 259.0 224.5

African American 40 232.2 34.3 221.5 242.8 265.1 255.6 203.9 178.4Hispanic 9 240.4 37.0 216.2 264.6 294.2 266.9 216.1 195.5

Other 25 278.9 44.5 261.5 296.3 342.4 316.0 243.2 199.3District 2

White 37 236.4 42.7 222.7 250.2 299.6 263.5 206.5 164.1African American 10 218.3 37.4 195.1 241.5 265.4 251.2 192.5 168.8

Hispanic 83 236.8 34.3 229.4 244.2 287.4 260.7 211.5 185.0Other 38 234.2 37.6 222.2 246.2 299.4 249.7 216.1 172.0

District 3White 99 267.8 41.6 259.6 276.0 340.6 284.4 243.2 205.4

African American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 4 266.6 22.0 245.1 288.1 293.3 272.2 253.0 251.0

Other 24 267.2 42.3 250.3 284.1 343.7 294.3 232.4 211.5

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

10

Page 11: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 215 N = 50 N = 96 N = 87 N = 79 N = 40 N = 9 N = 25 N = 37 N = 10 N = 83 N = 38 N = 99 N = 0 N = 4 N = 24

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3

White Afr-Am Hisp Other White Afr-Am Hisp Other White Afr-Am Hisp Other White Afr-Am Hisp Other

All

Figure 5. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

11

Page 12: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.5 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Number 448 256.8 45.0 252.6 260.9 332.2 286.9 227.7 181.4Algebra 448 258.1 46.4 253.8 262.4 320.0 293.4 225.0 184.1

Geometry 448 251.9 46.1 247.6 256.1 318.6 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 448 249.8 48.8 245.2 254.3 332.5 282.8 213.7 166.5

District 1Number 153 272.1 45.5 264.9 279.3 345.5 307.1 236.1 208.5Algebra 153 263.1 47.6 255.5 270.6 320.0 293.4 250.3 184.1

Geometry 153 257.4 46.2 250.1 264.7 324.6 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 153 258.8 52.3 250.5 267.1 332.5 292.9 225.1 166.5

District 2Number 168 236.0 40.6 229.9 242.1 300.7 266.2 208.5 161.2Algebra 168 249.1 43.5 242.6 255.7 309.4 285.8 225.0 184.1

Geometry 168 238.7 41.1 232.5 245.0 303.3 271.2 210.9 173.5Statistics 168 229.5 41.1 223.3 235.7 292.9 253.7 201.5 166.5

District 3Number 127 265.8 39.6 258.9 272.7 332.2 286.9 240.1 208.5Algebra 127 263.8 47.3 255.6 272.1 333.4 293.4 225.0 184.1

Geometry 127 262.6 48.4 254.1 271.0 333.5 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 127 265.6 45.1 257.7 273.4 345.5 292.9 239.8 205.1

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

12

Page 13: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N =448

N =448

N =448

N =448

N =153

N =153

N =153

N =153

N =168

N =168

N =168

N =168

N =127

N =127

N =127

N =127

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

Number Alg Geom Stat Number Alg Geom Stat Number Alg Geom Stat Number Alg Geom Stat

Figure 6. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

13

Page 14: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 1

Table 1.5.6 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 153 266.9 44.6 259.8 274.0 337.5 301.3 236.4 191.2

Male 80 266.6 47.1 256.3 277.0 337.5 301.3 232.4 190.9Female 73 263.6 52.0 251.7 275.4 333.4 298.5 243.2 194.3

White 79 283.7 38.9 275.1 292.3 337.5 309.8 259.0 224.5African American 40 232.2 34.3 221.5 242.8 265.1 255.6 203.9 178.4Hispanic 9 240.4 37.0 216.2 264.6 294.2 266.9 216.1 195.5Other 25 278.9 44.5 261.5 296.3 342.4 316.0 243.2 199.3

Number 153 272.1 45.5 264.9 279.3 345.5 307.1 236.1 208.5Algebra 153 263.1 47.6 255.5 270.6 320.0 293.4 250.3 184.1Geometry 153 257.4 46.2 250.1 264.7 324.6 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 153 258.8 52.3 250.5 267.1 332.5 292.9 225.1 166.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

14

Page 15: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 153 N = 80 N = 73 N = 79 N = 40 N = 9 N = 25 N = 153 N = 153 N = 153 N = 153

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Figure 7. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

15

Page 16: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.7 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile4 15 252.6 23.0 240.9 264.2 282.4 262.1 247.1 214.514 53 239.0 41.7 227.7 250.2 306.4 266.9 216.1 176.119 26 291.5 26.6 281.2 301.7 333.5 310.5 278.7 249.127 19 252.6 36.0 236.4 268.8 307.9 268.6 234.4 196.331 31 316.8 21.0 309.4 324.2 348.8 332.4 299.9 287.849 9 242.5 21.9 228.2 256.8 262.4 257.3 236.4 207.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

16

Page 17: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 15 N = 53 N = 26 N = 19 N = 31 N = 9

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 4 Teacher 14 Teacher 19 Teacher 27 Teacher 31 Teacher 49

Figure 8. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

17

Page 18: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.8 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile4 15 251.3 24.9 238.7 263.9 288.9 269.6 231.9 218.414 53 246.1 44.8 234.0 258.2 321.0 280.0 218.4 173.319 26 295.5 26.9 285.1 305.8 343.8 311.9 274.8 260.627 19 262.6 34.9 246.9 278.3 320.5 286.9 240.1 217.431 31 321.9 21.7 314.2 329.5 352.4 335.4 307.1 286.949 9 240.4 19.1 227.9 252.8 267.3 251.4 227.7 216.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

18

Page 19: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 15 N = 53 N = 26 N = 19 N = 31 N = 9

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 4 Teacher 14 Teacher 19 Teacher 27 Teacher 31 Teacher 49

Figure 9. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

19

Page 20: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.9 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile4 15 273.0 36.7 254.5 291.6 320.0 297.2 250.3 212.714 53 232.4 50.7 218.8 246.1 300.9 266.3 184.1 133.019 26 287.7 33.8 274.7 300.8 330.0 309.4 277.4 225.027 19 258.2 40.2 240.1 276.2 310.4 289.6 250.3 184.131 31 288.6 31.8 277.4 299.8 342.7 305.2 266.3 237.649 9 278.2 42.4 250.5 305.9 323.8 300.9 277.4 210.6

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

20

Page 21: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 15 N = 53 N = 26 N = 19 N = 31 N = 9

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 4 Teacher 14 Teacher 19 Teacher 27 Teacher 31 Teacher 49

Figure 10. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

21

Page 22: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.10 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile4 15 236.7 30.1 221.5 251.9 287.5 244.4 222.9 199.714 53 231.5 44.3 219.6 243.5 303.3 254.0 210.9 173.519 26 282.6 21.8 274.3 291.0 318.6 303.3 271.2 254.027 19 247.3 44.1 227.4 267.1 304.8 271.2 222.9 202.331 31 301.2 35.0 288.9 313.5 348.3 318.6 287.5 244.449 9 241.9 22.6 227.1 256.6 271.2 254.0 234.8 210.9

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

22

Page 23: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 15 N = 53 N = 26 N = 19 N = 31 N = 9

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 4 Teacher 14 Teacher 19 Teacher 27 Teacher 31 Teacher 49

Figure 11. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

23

Page 24: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.11 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile4 15 242.8 37.5 223.9 261.8 275.7 267.8 239.8 181.314 53 240.4 46.8 227.8 253.0 309.9 272.7 225.1 153.519 26 269.0 43.9 252.1 285.8 317.7 292.9 246.8 183.727 19 234.8 47.8 213.3 256.3 294.1 263.0 213.7 159.131 31 314.4 39.4 300.6 328.3 394.0 325.1 298.8 253.749 9 223.4 20.5 210.1 236.8 250.0 244.4 201.5 201.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

24

Page 25: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 15 N = 53 N = 26 N = 19 N = 31 N = 9

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 4 Teacher 14 Teacher 19 Teacher 27 Teacher 31 Teacher 49

Figure 12. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

25

Page 26: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 2

Table 1.5.12 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 168 235.0 37.2 229.4 240.7 298.5 258.1 210.3 174.4

Male 84 236.5 39.3 228.1 244.9 298.5 258.8 210.3 173.0Female 84 233.6 35.1 226.1 241.1 289.7 258.1 210.3 178.8

White 37 236.4 42.7 222.7 250.2 299.6 263.5 206.5 164.1African American 10 218.3 37.4 195.1 241.5 265.4 251.2 192.5 168.8Hispanic 83 236.8 34.3 229.4 244.2 287.4 260.7 211.5 185.0Other 38 234.2 37.6 222.2 246.2 299.4 249.7 216.1 172.0

Number 168 236.0 40.6 229.9 242.1 300.7 266.2 208.5 161.2Algebra 168 249.1 43.5 242.6 255.7 309.4 285.8 225.0 184.1Geometry 168 238.7 41.1 232.5 245.0 303.3 271.2 210.9 173.5Statistics 168 229.5 41.1 223.3 235.7 292.9 253.7 201.5 166.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

26

Page 27: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 168 N = 84 N = 84 N = 37 N = 10 N = 83 N = 38 N = 168 N = 168 N = 168 N = 168

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

Figure 13. Distribution of MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

27

Page 28: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.13 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile2 32 231.9 34.8 219.9 244.0 282.8 257.3 196.3 185.012 41 222.1 35.8 211.2 233.1 275.9 247.1 196.3 172.022 23 241.1 39.0 225.2 257.1 297.1 255.6 230.5 164.926 72 241.8 36.9 233.3 250.4 304.2 265.9 216.1 185.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

28

Page 29: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 32 N = 41 N = 23 N = 72

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 2 Teacher 12 Teacher 22 Teacher 26

Figure 14. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

29

Page 30: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.14 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile2 32 242.7 35.8 230.3 255.1 296.9 267.9 218.4 189.612 41 230.2 39.5 218.1 242.3 293.8 258.8 208.5 161.222 23 243.6 36.2 228.8 258.4 286.2 266.2 218.4 181.426 72 233.9 44.3 223.7 244.2 309.9 253.2 208.5 172.3

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

30

Page 31: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 32 N = 41 N = 23 N = 72

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 2 Teacher 12 Teacher 22 Teacher 26

Figure 15. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

31

Page 32: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.15 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile2 32 241.9 39.3 228.3 255.5 285.8 266.3 225.0 184.112 41 238.9 50.2 223.6 254.3 300.9 277.4 225.0 133.022 23 258.8 35.6 244.2 273.3 309.4 289.6 225.0 225.026 72 255.0 42.5 245.2 264.9 314.2 293.4 225.0 184.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

32

Page 33: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 32 N = 41 N = 23 N = 72

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 2 Teacher 12 Teacher 22 Teacher 26

Figure 16. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

33

Page 34: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.16 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile2 32 236.8 44.3 221.4 252.2 303.3 258.3 210.9 173.512 41 229.2 41.7 216.4 241.9 271.2 254.0 210.9 125.222 23 236.7 46.6 217.7 255.7 300.1 254.0 222.9 130.026 72 245.7 36.9 237.2 254.2 294.6 271.2 210.9 173.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

34

Page 35: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 32 N = 41 N = 23 N = 72

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 2 Teacher 12 Teacher 22 Teacher 26

Figure 17. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

35

Page 36: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.17 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile2 32 219.3 37.2 206.4 232.2 272.7 244.4 186.3 166.512 41 209.0 38.0 197.4 220.7 253.7 225.1 186.3 166.522 23 233.9 40.7 217.2 250.5 282.8 253.7 225.1 139.326 72 244.4 39.0 235.4 253.4 292.9 263.0 213.7 201.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

36

Page 37: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 32 N = 41 N = 23 N = 72

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 2 Teacher 12 Teacher 22 Teacher 26

Figure 18. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

37

Page 38: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 3

Table 1.5.18 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 127 267.6 41.0 260.5 274.8 342.7 284.4 241.5 208.0

Male 65 272.1 42.3 261.8 282.3 346.4 284.4 243.2 212.4Female 62 263.0 39.4 253.2 272.8 340.0 283.7 236.4 206.7

White 99 267.8 41.6 259.6 276.0 340.6 284.4 243.2 205.4African-American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 4 266.6 22.0 245.1 288.1 293.3 272.2 253.0 251.0Other 24 267.2 42.3 250.3 284.1 343.7 294.3 232.4 211.5

Number 127 265.8 39.6 258.9 272.7 332.2 286.9 240.1 208.5Algebra 127 263.8 47.3 255.6 272.1 333.4 293.4 225.0 184.1Geometry 127 262.6 48.4 254.1 271.0 333.5 287.5 234.8 173.5Statistics 127 265.6 45.1 257.7 273.4 345.5 292.9 239.8 205.1

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

38

Page 39: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 19. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 127 N = 65 N = 62 N = 99 N = 0 N = 4 N = 24 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

Content Strand

39

Page 40: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.19 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile3 17 259.2 47.2 236.8 281.7 314.1 278.7 239.8 183.87 23 281.4 44.2 263.4 299.5 359.6 304.2 250.5 221.623 22 252.3 31.2 239.2 265.3 298.2 273.1 232.4 192.625 20 282.5 37.6 266.0 299.0 343.7 303.5 260.7 244.641 22 263.5 42.9 245.6 281.4 340.0 278.7 236.4 212.248 23 265.8 38.0 250.3 281.3 323.9 290.0 238.1 212.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

40

Page 41: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 17 N = 23 N = 22 N = 20 N = 22 N = 23

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 3 Teacher 7 Teacher 23 Teacher 25 Teacher 41 Teacher 48

Figure 20. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

41

Page 42: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.20 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile3 17 264.6 44.2 243.6 285.6 314.5 280.0 236.1 199.17 23 279.9 37.0 264.8 295.1 344.2 300.7 255.1 236.123 22 252.8 36.6 237.5 268.1 318.9 273.1 229.8 197.325 20 274.4 38.0 257.7 291.0 320.8 295.5 258.8 239.941 22 261.4 43.0 243.4 279.4 331.6 278.2 229.8 209.048 23 261.8 37.8 246.4 277.2 324.6 280.0 240.1 227.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

42

Page 43: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 17 N = 23 N = 22 N = 20 N = 22 N = 23

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 3 Teacher 7 Teacher 23 Teacher 25 Teacher 41 Teacher 48

Figure 21. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

43

Page 44: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.21 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile3 17 270.8 45.3 249.3 292.3 338.6 285.8 250.3 225.07 23 276.1 45.5 257.4 294.7 350.2 305.2 250.3 188.223 22 248.2 34.4 233.9 262.6 300.2 277.4 225.0 186.125 20 266.6 59.6 240.5 292.7 334.3 309.4 225.0 181.541 22 247.8 48.1 227.7 267.9 319.5 274.6 225.0 184.148 23 274.3 45.4 255.8 292.9 350.2 293.4 258.3 188.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

44

Page 45: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 17 N = 23 N = 22 N = 20 N = 22 N = 23

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 3 Teacher 7 Teacher 23 Teacher 25 Teacher 41 Teacher 48

Figure 22. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

45

Page 46: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.22 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile3 17 247.2 47.7 224.6 269.9 309.3 271.2 234.8 163.97 23 281.6 46.2 262.8 300.5 363.0 295.4 254.0 213.323 22 256.5 46.3 237.1 275.8 332.7 287.5 234.8 175.425 20 279.1 37.9 262.5 295.7 334.2 307.1 254.0 233.641 22 252.6 47.3 232.8 272.3 332.7 266.9 234.8 175.448 23 255.8 56.6 232.7 278.9 332.0 287.5 222.9 173.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

46

Page 47: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 17 N = 23 N = 22 N = 20 N = 22 N = 23

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 3 Teacher 7 Teacher 23 Teacher 25 Teacher 41 Teacher 48

Figure 23. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

47

Page 48: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.5.23 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile3 17 244.9 61.4 215.7 274.1 309.3 272.7 235.2 125.87 23 270.9 42.3 253.6 288.1 331.0 305.3 235.2 214.823 22 251.4 29.1 239.3 263.6 292.4 272.7 227.6 202.125 20 286.0 37.8 269.5 302.6 334.6 308.0 260.7 234.741 22 276.5 48.7 256.1 296.8 351.0 292.9 244.4 214.848 23 260.9 41.5 244.0 277.9 329.7 282.8 234.8 202.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

48

Page 49: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 17 N = 23 N = 22 N = 20 N = 22 N = 23

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 3 Teacher 7 Teacher 23 Teacher 25 Teacher 41 Teacher 48

Figure 24. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 5, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

49

Page 50: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Grade 6 All Districts

Table 1.6.1 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 503 239.9 48.9 235.7 244.2 316.6 275.9 206.5 165.2

Male 229 236.1 49.1 230.3 241.9 312.9 266.3 206.5 144.9Female 274 243.1 48.6 236.8 249.4 317.4 282.1 206.5 165.2

White 226 260.28 45.07 254.41 266.16 325.05 292.72 229.05 184.43Afr-Am 85 201.10 42.12 192.15 210.05 266.32 234.13 175.39 121.18Hispanic 108 233.99 39.49 226.55 241.44 293.43 256.01 206.46 175.39Other 84 232.10 48.57 221.71 242.49 311.16 263.35 199.68 155.15

Number 503 239.7 48.5 235.5 243.9 311.5 274.1 214.4 139.1Algebra 503 242.3 47.3 238.2 246.4 308.5 275.6 218.3 133.0Geometry 503 247.7 49.2 243.4 252.0 316.7 289.9 202.7 158.7Stat&Prob 503 238.6 50.7 234.2 243.0 321.1 271.4 206.5 153.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

50

Page 51: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 25. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 503 N = 229 N = 274 N = 226 N = 85 N = 108 N = 84 N = 503 N = 503 N = 503 N = 503

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

by Content Strand

51

Page 52: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.2 MiC Classroom Achievement, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by District

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 503 239.9 48.9 235.7 244.2 316.6 275.9 206.5 165.2

District 1 118 213.6 45.1 205.5 221.8 282.1 246.1 184.4 121.2District 2 161 233.3 42.6 226.7 239.9 296.3 262.4 206.5 165.2District 3 148 279.2 39.0 272.9 285.5 338.4 307.1 258.0 206.2District 4 76 218.4 35.6 210.4 226.4 273.4 247.1 192.3 165.2

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

52

Page 53: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 503 N = 118 N = 161 N = 148 N = 76

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 All District 1 District 4District 3District 2

Figure 26. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by District

53

Page 54: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.3 Mi C Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Male 274 236.1 49.1 230.3 241.9 312.9 266.3 206.5 144.9Female 229 243.1 48.6 236.8 249.4 317.4 282.1 206.5 165.2

District 1Male 58 211.3 40.1 201.0 221.6 282.6 238.6 184.4 151.3

Female 61 213.3 53.4 199.9 226.6 279.3 255.0 192.3 121.2District 2

Male 99 236.2 41.9 227.9 244.4 296.5 262.4 206.5 174.4Female 62 228.7 43.8 217.9 239.6 295.7 255.0 201.4 140.0

District 3Male 80 284.7 38.6 276.2 293.2 335.1 309.2 265.3 222.7

Female 68 272.7 38.7 263.5 281.9 338.4 297.0 247.1 201.4District 4

Male 37 221.7 35.2 210.4 233.1 273.2 247.1 192.3 173.4Female 39 215.2 36.1 203.8 226.5 269.0 238.6 192.3 164.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

54

Page 55: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 274 N = 229 N = 60 N = 58 N = 62 N = 99 N = 68 N = 80 N = 39 N = 37

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All District 1 District 2 District 3

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

District 4

Male Female

Figure 27. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender

55

Page 56: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.4 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

White 226 260.3 45.1 254.4 266.2 325.1 292.7 229.0 184.4African American 85 201.1 42.1 192.1 210.1 266.3 234.1 175.4 121.2

Hispanic 108 234.0 39.5 226.5 241.4 293.4 256.0 206.5 175.4Other 84 232.1 48.6 221.7 242.5 311.2 263.4 199.7 155.1

District 1White 64 228.3 39.5 218.6 238.0 284.5 256.0 206.5 155.1

African American 27 184.8 44.3 168.1 201.5 244.6 212.7 165.2 104.2Hispanic 11 198.7 37.8 176.3 221.0 242.9 231.3 175.4 148.3

Other 16 213.9 48.9 190.0 237.9 284.2 249.1 172.9 139.3District 2

White 25 249.9 49.7 230.4 269.4 311.0 279.3 234.1 161.2African American 20 200.2 40.5 182.5 217.9 267.0 216.8 182.2 138.3

Hispanic 81 233.6 35.3 226.0 241.3 285.0 255.0 212.7 184.4Other 35 239.6 45.7 224.5 254.7 301.5 275.9 209.6 161.7

District 3White 133 278.5 36.8 272.3 284.8 331.9 306.4 255.0 221.7

African American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 6 289.5 53.2 246.9 332.1 343.5 320.0 270.3 216.3

Other 9 281.6 61.4 241.5 321.7 344.9 311.5 259.0 181.6District 4

White 4 229.8 40.4 190.2 269.3 272.2 257.3 197.8 193.4African American 38 213.2 38.2 201.0 225.3 267.3 247.1 184.4 153.4

Hispanic 10 242.4 25.9 226.4 258.5 279.4 258.0 229.0 210.6Other 24 214.7 31.1 202.2 227.1 265.7 230.3 197.8 175.4

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

56

Page 57: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 226 N = 85 N = 108 N = 84 N = 64 N = 27 N = 11 N = 16 N = 25 N = 20 N = 81 N = 35 N = 133 N = 0 N = 6 N = 9 N = 4 N = 38 N = 10 N = 24

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

White AfrAm Hisp Other

All

White AfrAm Hisp Other White AfrAm Hisp Other White AfrAm Hisp Other White AfrAm Hisp Other

Figure 28. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

57

Page 58: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.5 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Number 503 239.7 48.5 235.5 243.9 311.5 274.1 214.4 139.1Algebra 503 242.3 47.3 238.2 246.4 308.5 275.6 218.3 133.0

Geometry 503 247.7 49.2 243.4 252.0 316.7 289.9 202.7 158.7Statistics 503 238.6 50.7 234.2 243.0 321.1 271.4 206.5 153.0

District 1Number 118 221.6 47.3 213.0 230.1 285.6 254.8 198.2 139.1Algebra 118 211.0 48.9 202.2 219.8 288.1 242.7 180.1 133.0

Geometry 118 232.2 42.1 224.6 239.8 292.1 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 118 214.4 42.8 206.6 222.1 271.4 236.0 185.9 153.0

District 2Number 161 231.1 44.3 224.3 238.0 294.3 261.7 198.2 139.1Algebra 161 246.1 40.5 239.9 252.4 308.5 275.6 218.3 180.1

Geometry 161 238.9 46.8 231.6 246.1 304.7 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 161 230.0 46.1 222.8 237.1 294.2 260.0 206.5 153.0

District 3Number 148 274.2 39.6 267.8 280.5 329.2 303.1 247.0 198.2Algebra 148 269.0 39.2 262.6 275.3 322.1 288.1 261.0 193.5

Geometry 148 277.8 47.8 270.1 285.5 347.4 316.7 243.9 202.7Statistics 148 277.3 45.1 270.0 284.5 359.0 306.8 248.2 206.5

District 4Number 76 218.9 39.1 210.1 227.7 275.4 248.9 198.2 139.1Algebra 76 230.8 40.2 221.8 239.9 288.1 261.0 218.3 180.1

Geometry 76 231.9 41.5 222.6 241.2 293.6 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 76 219.4 37.4 210.9 227.8 271.4 248.2 206.5 153.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

58

Page 59: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 503 N = 503 N = 503 N = 503 N = 118 N = 118 N = 118 N = 118 N = 161 N = 161 N = 161 N = 161 N = 148 N = 148 N = 148 N = 148 N = 76 N = 76 N = 76 N = 76

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

Number Alg Geom Stat

All

Number Alg Geom StatNumber Alg Geom StatNumber Alg Geom StatNumber Alg Geom Stat

Figure 29. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

59

Page 60: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 1

Table 1.6.6 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 118 213.6 45.1 205.5 221.8 282.1 246.1 184.4 121.2

Male 60 215.9 49.7 203.3 228.5 279.4 255.0 192.3 121.2Female 58 211.3 40.1 201.0 221.6 282.6 238.6 184.4 151.3

White 64 228.3 39.5 218.6 238.0 284.5 256.0 206.5 155.1African American 27 184.8 44.3 168.1 201.5 244.6 212.7 165.2 104.2Hispanic 11 198.7 37.8 176.3 221.0 242.9 231.3 175.4 148.3Other 16 213.9 48.9 190.0 237.9 284.2 249.1 172.9 139.3

Number 118 221.6 47.3 213.0 230.1 285.6 254.8 198.2 139.1Algebra 118 211.0 48.9 202.2 219.8 288.1 242.7 180.1 133.0Geometry 118 232.2 42.1 224.6 239.8 292.1 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 118 214.4 42.8 206.6 222.1 271.4 236.0 185.9 153.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

60

Page 61: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 118 N = 60 N = 58 N = 64 N = 27 N = 11 N = 16 N = 118 N = 118 N = 118 N = 118

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All

61

Figure 30. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Page 62: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.7 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile30 8 232.9 27.7 213.7 252.1 267.1 250.9 221.1 194.333 54 215.4 47.4 202.8 228.1 282.1 253.0 184.4 139.338 56 209.1 44.6 197.5 220.8 273.5 243.2 190.4 121.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

62

Page 63: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 8 N = 55 N = 56

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 30 Teacher 33 Teacher 38

63

Figure 31. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 64: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.8 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile30 8 223.1 41.3 194.5 251.6 259.3 254.8 210.4 159.733 54 218.4 50.1 205.0 231.7 282.9 254.8 198.2 139.138 56 224.5 46.0 212.4 236.5 286.0 261.7 192.6 139.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

64

Page 65: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 8 N = 54 N = 56

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 30 Teacher 33 Teacher 38

65

Figure 32. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 66: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.9 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile30 8 244.5 23.4 228.3 260.8 270.5 261.0 218.3 218.333 54 214.6 50.4 201.1 228.0 288.1 242.7 180.1 133.038 56 202.8 48.2 190.1 215.4 288.1 242.7 180.1 133.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

66

Page 67: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 8 N = 54 N = 56

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 30 Teacher 33 Teacher 38

67

Figure 33. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 68: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.10 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile30 8 250.0 43.9 219.5 280.4 299.6 275.5 243.9 188.533 54 241.1 43.7 229.4 252.8 304.7 270.7 202.7 158.738 56 221.0 37.9 211.1 231.0 289.9 243.9 202.7 158.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

68

Page 69: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 8 N = 54 N = 56

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 30 Teacher 33 Teacher 38

69

Figure 34. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 70: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.11 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile30 8 237.1 28.5 217.3 256.8 278.8 254.0 218.5 206.533 54 217.9 46.4 205.5 230.3 275.4 248.2 185.9 153.038 56 207.7 39.8 197.3 218.1 260.0 236.0 185.9 153.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

70

Page 71: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 8 N = 54 N = 56

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 30 Teacher 33 Teacher 38

71

Figure 35. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 72: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 2

Table 1.6.12 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 161 233.3 42.6 226.7 239.9 296.3 262.4 206.5 165.2

Male 62 228.7 43.8 217.9 239.6 295.7 255.0 201.4 140.0Female 99 236.2 41.9 227.9 244.4 296.5 262.4 206.5 174.4

White 25 249.9 49.7 230.4 269.4 311.0 279.3 234.1 161.2African American 20 200.2 40.5 182.5 217.9 267.0 216.8 182.2 138.3Hispanic 81 233.6 35.3 226.0 241.3 285.0 255.0 212.7 184.4Other 35 239.6 45.7 224.5 254.7 301.5 275.9 209.6 161.7

Number 161 231.1 44.3 224.3 238.0 294.3 261.7 198.2 139.1Algebra 161 246.1 40.5 239.9 252.4 308.5 275.6 218.3 180.1Geometry 161 238.9 46.8 231.6 246.1 304.7 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 161 230.0 46.1 222.8 237.1 294.2 260.0 206.5 153.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

72

Page 73: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

9

100%

73

Figure 36. Distribution of MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

0%

N = 161 N = 62 N = 99 N = 25 N = 20 N = 81 N = 35 N = 161 N = 161 N = 161 N = 161

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All

Page 74: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.13 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile37 45 228.0 34.4 218.0 238.1 280.2 251.1 199.7 177.245 36 267.2 36.2 255.4 279.0 316.2 287.8 247.1 206.551 47 231.9 38.9 220.8 243.1 282.1 259.0 209.6 150.152 33 205.5 41.4 191.4 219.6 285.0 234.1 184.4 140.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

74

Page 75: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 45 N = 36 N = 47 N = 33

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 37 Teacher 45 Teacher 51 Teacher 52

Figure 37. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

75

Page 76: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.14 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile37 45 228.9 38.0 217.8 240.0 282.7 254.8 214.4 146.445 36 260.7 36.8 248.6 272.7 308.5 290.6 238.1 192.651 47 230.4 43.2 218.0 242.8 284.9 258.3 214.4 139.152 33 203.0 43.0 188.3 217.6 266.7 238.1 176.0 139.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

76

Page 77: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 45 N = 36 N = 47 N = 33

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 37 Teacher 45 Teacher 51 Teacher 52

77

Figure 38. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 78: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.15 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile37 45 249.1 34.7 239.0 259.2 288.1 275.6 218.3 180.145 36 266.8 41.4 253.3 280.4 333.3 299.2 242.7 218.351 47 239.1 40.9 227.5 250.8 295.8 261.0 218.3 180.152 33 229.5 37.4 216.7 242.3 288.1 275.6 218.3 180.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

78

Page 79: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 45 N = 36 N = 47 N = 33

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 37 Teacher 45 Teacher 51 Teacher 52

79

Figure 39. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 80: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.16 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile37 45 227.7 44.9 214.6 240.9 301.8 270.7 202.7 158.745 36 273.2 38.9 260.4 285.9 316.7 304.7 264.0 202.751 47 233.4 42.0 221.4 245.5 289.9 270.7 202.7 158.752 33 224.4 47.4 208.2 240.6 289.9 270.7 202.7 158.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

80

Page 81: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 45 N = 36 N = 47 N = 33

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 37 Teacher 45 Teacher 51 Teacher 52

81

Figure 40. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 82: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.17 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile37 45 220.9 37.6 209.9 231.9 271.4 248.2 206.5 153.045 36 256.0 42.2 242.2 269.8 321.1 274.3 236.0 218.551 47 235.9 41.6 224.0 247.8 294.2 260.0 206.5 185.952 33 205.4 52.1 187.6 223.2 280.5 236.0 185.9 109.6

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

82

Page 83: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

83

Figure 41. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

60%

70%

80%

90%

10

N = 45 N = 36 N = 47 N = 33

0%

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 37 Teacher 45 Teacher 51 Teacher 52

Page 84: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 3

Table 1.6.18 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 148 279.2 39.0 272.9 285.5 338.4 307.1 258.0 206.2

Male 68 272.7 38.7 263.5 281.9 338.4 297.0 247.1 201.4Female 80 284.7 38.6 276.2 293.2 335.1 309.2 265.3 222.7

White 133 278.5 36.8 272.3 284.8 331.9 306.4 255.0 221.7African-American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 6 289.5 53.2 246.9 332.1 343.5 320.0 270.3 216.3Other 9 281.6 61.4 241.5 321.7 344.9 311.5 259.0 181.6

Number 148 274.2 39.6 267.8 280.5 329.2 303.1 247.0 198.2Algebra 148 269.0 39.2 262.6 275.3 322.1 288.1 261.0 193.5Geometry 148 277.8 47.8 270.1 285.5 347.4 316.7 243.9 202.7Statistics 148 277.3 45.1 270.0 284.5 359.0 306.8 248.2 206.5

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

84

Page 85: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

9

100%400

0%

N = 148 N = 80 N = 68 N = 133 N = 0 N = 6 N = 9 N = 148 N = 148 N = 148 N = 148

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100

Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All

85

Figure 42. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Page 86: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.19 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile6 24 302.5 37.2 287.6 317.4 350.7 326.7 282.1 241.715 41 280.7 35.5 269.8 291.5 325.6 306.4 251.1 224.039 38 277.4 39.1 265.0 289.8 332.6 304.6 256.0 224.640 38 278.5 27.7 269.7 287.3 317.6 302.9 262.4 229.050 7 203.8 23.0 186.7 220.8 231.1 224.0 188.4 178.1

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

86

Page 87: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 24 N = 41 N = 38 N = 38 N = 7

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 6 Teacher 15 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 50

87

Figure 43. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 88: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.20

MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile6 24 289.9 39.0 274.3 305.6 329.2 318.1 274.1 228.915 41 276.7 38.7 264.9 288.5 329.2 303.1 247.0 214.439 38 272.5 39.9 259.8 285.2 331.5 306.4 247.0 208.740 38 275.8 28.2 266.8 284.7 320.4 294.3 261.7 236.550 7 205.3 34.6 179.7 230.9 238.1 232.7 198.2 156.8

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

88

Page 89: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 24 N = 41 N = 38 N = 38 N = 7

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 6 Teacher 15 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 50

89

Figure 44. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 90: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.21 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile6 24 292.9 30.4 280.7 305.0 337.3 310.6 275.6 261.015 41 264.8 38.9 252.9 276.7 308.5 288.1 261.0 180.139 38 274.2 36.3 262.6 285.7 318.1 288.1 261.0 218.340 38 263.9 34.8 252.9 275.0 308.5 288.1 242.7 218.350 7 210.2 42.2 179.0 241.5 255.5 230.5 199.2 147.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

90

Page 91: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 24 N = 41 N = 38 N = 38 N = 7

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 6 Teacher 15 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 50

91

Figure 45. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 92: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.22 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile6 24 306.6 33.2 293.4 319.9 356.3 327.3 289.9 243.915 41 286.7 44.8 272.9 300.4 347.4 316.7 243.9 202.739 38 264.0 44.8 249.8 278.3 316.7 289.9 243.9 202.740 38 278.8 43.4 265.0 292.6 338.8 304.7 250.6 202.750 7 195.6 38.4 167.2 224.1 243.9 223.3 158.7 158.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

92

Page 93: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

6

93

Figure 46. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

0%

70%

80%

90%

10

N = 24 N = 41 N = 38 N = 38 N = 7

0%

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 6 Teacher 15 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 50

Page 94: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.23 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile6 24 301.0 40.8 284.6 317.3 355.8 337.5 282.8 237.915 41 275.2 48.2 260.5 290.0 359.0 294.2 236.0 206.539 38 279.0 47.8 263.8 294.2 359.0 306.8 248.2 203.440 38 272.6 34.9 261.5 283.7 323.6 294.2 260.0 206.550 7 223.7 26.1 204.3 243.0 256.5 242.1 206.5 192.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

94

Page 95: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 24 N = 41 N = 38 N = 38 N = 7

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 6 Teacher 15 Teacher 39 Teacher 40 Teacher 50

95

Figure 47. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 96: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 4

Table 1.6.24 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 76 218.4 35.6 210.4 226.4 273.4 247.1 192.3 165.2

Male 39 215.2 36.1 203.8 226.5 269.0 238.6 192.3 164.0Female 37 221.7 35.2 210.4 233.1 273.2 247.1 192.3 173.4

White 4 229.8 40.4 190.2 269.3 272.2 257.3 197.8 193.4African-American 38 213.2 38.2 201.0 225.3 267.3 247.1 184.4 153.4Hispanic 10 242.4 25.9 226.4 258.5 279.4 258.0 229.0 210.6Other 24 214.7 31.1 202.2 227.1 265.7 230.3 197.8 175.4

Number 76 218.9 39.1 210.1 227.7 275.4 248.9 198.2 139.1Algebra 76 230.8 40.2 221.8 239.9 288.1 261.0 218.3 180.1Geometry 76 231.9 41.5 222.6 241.2 293.6 270.7 202.7 158.7Statistics 76 219.4 37.4 210.9 227.8 271.4 248.2 206.5 153.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

96

Page 97: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 76 N = 37 N = 39 N = 4 N = 38 N = 10 N = 24 N = 76 N = 76 N = 76 N = 76

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

250

100 Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

Figure 48. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

97

Page 98: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.25

MiC Classroom Achievement in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile29 46 208.5 36.5 197.9 219.0 265.3 237.5 184.4 156.346 30 233.6 28.5 223.4 243.8 274.4 255.0 214.1 188.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

98

Page 99: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

99

Figure 49. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

80%

90%

10 %

N = 46 N = 30

0

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

040

250

100 Teacher 29 Teacher 46

Page 100: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.26 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile29 46 209.5 40.3 197.9 221.2 266.5 235.4 198.2 139.146 30 233.3 32.9 221.5 245.0 277.0 261.7 214.4 186.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

100

Page 101: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 46 N = 30

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 29 Teacher 46

101

Figure 50. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 102: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.27 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile29 46 223.6 42.6 211.3 235.9 288.1 256.4 180.1 144.846 30 242.0 33.8 229.9 254.1 275.6 261.0 218.3 180.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

102

Page 103: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 46 N = 30

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 29 Teacher 46

103

Figure 51. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 104: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.28 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile29 46 227.9 41.8 215.8 240.0 289.9 243.9 202.7 158.746 30 238.0 41.0 223.4 252.7 298.1 270.7 202.7 158.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

104

Page 105: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 46 N = 30

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 29 Teacher 46

105

Figure 52. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 106: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.6.29 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile29 46 209.3 39.1 198.0 220.6 271.4 236.0 185.9 153.046 30 234.8 29.0 224.4 245.2 266.3 248.2 222.5 206.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

106

Page 107: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%400

N = 46 N = 30

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

250

100 Teacher 29 Teacher 46

107

Figure 53. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 6, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Page 108: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Grade 7 All Districts

Table 1.7.1 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentilesN Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile

Overall 507 252.8 49.2 248.5 257.1 326.2 285.0 221.7 170.3

Male 256 256.0 52.8 249.6 262.5 334.1 291.3 226.8 170.3Female 251 249.5 45.2 243.9 255.0 318.8 280.4 216.1 180.5

White 202 277.2 44.1 271.2 283.3 345.3 308.7 248.8 203.6Afr-Am 54 231.7 44.5 219.9 243.6 305.4 258.7 205.3 154.1Hispanic 129 232.8 40.9 225.8 239.9 294.8 263.5 203.6 170.3Other 122 242.7 50.4 233.7 251.6 313.4 275.9 210.4 144.9

Number 507 249.3 47.8 245.1 253.4 326.8 279.0 212.5 164.4Algebra 507 254.1 50.0 249.8 258.5 336.5 284.9 233.0 173.4Geometry 507 254.5 51.1 250.0 258.9 322.0 285.6 227.2 169.2Stat&Prob 507 249.5 48.3 245.3 253.7 326.2 287.8 209.1 174.9

108

Page 109: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 54. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 507 N = 256 N = 251 N = 202 N = 54 N = 129 N = 122 N = 507 N = 507 N = 507 N = 507

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

by Content Strand

109

Page 110: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.2 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by District

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 507 252.8 49.2 248.5 257.1 326.2 285.0 221.7 170.3

District 1 88 247.2 43.9 238.1 256.4 310.5 282.8 216.1 170.3District 2 184 240.3 39.8 234.5 246.0 307.9 266.3 210.4 180.5District 3 127 293.4 40.5 286.4 300.5 365.7 321.1 263.5 231.9District 4 108 230.8 50.0 221.3 240.2 298.6 266.3 196.9 144.9

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

110

Page 111: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 507 N = 88 N = 184 N = 127 N = 108

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100All District 1 District 3District 2 District 4

Figure 55. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by District

111

Page 112: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.3 Mi C Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Male 256 256.0 52.8 249.6 262.5 334.1 291.3 226.8 170.3Female 251 249.5 45.2 243.9 255.0 318.8 280.4 216.1 180.5

District 1Male 43 250.05 49.75 235.18 264.92 317.82 293.43 218.88 170.31

Female 45 244.56 37.83 233.50 255.61 305.40 269.71 216.06 196.86District 2

Male 93 242.2 45.5 233.0 251.5 313.8 273.1 210.4 176.4Female 91 238.3 33.3 231.4 245.1 297.1 264.9 216.1 184.7

District 3Male 72 297.9 40.0 288.7 307.1 368.3 324.5 263.5 234.4

Female 55 287.6 40.7 276.8 298.3 345.3 316.6 264.9 228.8District 4

Male 48 225.3 48.7 211.5 239.1 282.1 263.5 194.9 144.9Female 60 235.1 51.0 222.2 248.0 306.5 271.3 201.9 144.0

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

112

Page 113: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 256 N = 251 N = 43 N = 45 N = 93 N = 91 N = 72 N = 55 N = 48 N = 60

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All District 1 District 2 District 3

Male Female Male FemaleMale Female Male Female

District 4

Male Female

Figure 56. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender

113

Page 114: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.4 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

White 202 277.2 44.1 271.2 283.3 345.3 308.7 248.8 203.6African-American 54 231.7 44.5 219.9 243.6 305.4 258.7 205.3 154.1

Hispanic 129 232.8 40.9 225.8 239.9 294.8 263.5 203.6 170.3Other 122 242.7 50.4 233.7 251.6 313.4 275.9 210.4 144.9

District 1White 54 254.4 43.4 242.8 265.9 321.4 290.6 221.7 194.1

African American 12 216.6 45.9 190.6 242.5 283.8 237.5 194.9 144.8Hispanic 9 243.7 42.6 215.8 271.5 296.7 266.3 226.8 181.8

Other 13 248.4 36.7 228.5 268.4 302.2 266.3 236.4 190.3District 2

White 28 262.1 30.0 251.0 273.2 313.0 283.5 243.9 219.8African American 19 233.6 33.0 218.8 248.4 286.8 256.2 213.2 188.1

Hispanic 90 232.7 38.0 224.8 240.5 293.4 256.2 203.6 180.5Other 47 244.5 46.2 231.3 257.7 317.3 271.4 210.4 188.9

District 3White 116 292.8 41.2 285.3 300.3 365.7 321.1 263.5 231.9

African American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 2 309.8 20.0 282.1 337.5 322.5 316.9 302.7 297.1

Other 9 298.3 35.1 275.3 321.2 349.9 316.6 282.1 254.9District 4

White 4 242.0 35.6 207.2 276.9 277.7 260.1 226.5 202.8African American 23 238.1 51.6 217.0 259.2 311.2 275.9 212.7 147.4

Hispanic 28 224.2 45.5 207.4 241.1 279.0 260.5 194.9 144.9Other 53 230.2 53.0 215.9 244.5 296.6 269.7 196.9 137.9

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

114

Page 115: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 57. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Ethnic Group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 202 N = 54 N = 129 N = 122 N = 54 N = 12 N = 9 N = 13 N = 28 N = 19 N = 90 N = 47 N = 116 N = 0 N = 2 N = 9 N = 4 N = 23 N = 28 N = 53

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3

White AfrAm Hisp Other

All

White AfrAm Hisp OtherWhite AfrAm Hisp OtherWhite AfrAm Hisp OtherWhite AfrAm Hisp Other

District 4

115

Page 116: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.5 MiC Classroom Achievement in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall

Number 507 249.3 47.8 245.1 253.4 326.8 279.0 212.5 164.4Algebra 507 254.1 50.0 249.8 258.5 336.5 284.9 233.0 173.4

Geometry 507 254.5 51.1 250.0 258.9 322.0 285.6 227.2 169.2Statistics 507 249.5 48.3 245.3 253.7 326.2 287.8 209.1 174.9

District 1Number 88 242.1 46.5 232.4 251.8 307.8 279.0 212.5 166.3Algebra 88 256.4 44.5 247.1 265.6 331.7 284.9 233.0 173.4

Geometry 88 246.3 44.5 237.0 255.6 301.4 277.0 227.2 169.2Statistics 88 245.4 45.9 235.8 255.0 308.3 275.2 209.1 174.9

District 2Number 184 233.0 43.5 226.7 239.3 302.6 261.7 212.5 153.3Algebra 184 244.0 44.2 237.6 250.4 308.9 275.2 209.9 173.4

Geo & Meas 184 249.0 43.2 242.8 255.3 308.6 277.0 227.2 169.2Prob & Stat 184 236.7 44.3 230.3 243.1 312.7 262.1 209.1 174.9

District 3Number 127 283.3 39.7 276.4 290.2 350.9 310.5 256.8 212.5Algebra 127 290.2 43.4 282.7 297.8 360.0 319.2 263.6 233.0

Geometry 127 292.6 36.0 286.3 298.8 346.4 315.8 277.0 243.0Statistics 127 281.5 43.3 273.9 289.0 341.3 312.7 247.8 209.1

District 4Number 108 242.8 45.3 234.2 251.3 310.5 270.6 212.5 153.3Algebra 108 227.0 46.6 218.2 235.8 290.4 263.6 209.9 124.1

Geometry 108 225.6 57.8 214.7 236.5 293.7 277.0 169.2 120.4Statistics 108 236.8 45.8 228.2 245.5 300.1 262.1 209.1 174.9

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

116

Page 117: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Figure 58. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in All Districts, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Content Strand

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 507 N = 507 N = 507 N = 507 N = 88 N = 88 N = 88 N = 88 N = 184 N = 184 N = 184 N = 184 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127 N = 108 N = 108 N = 108 N = 108

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

Number All Geo Stat

All Districts

Number Alg Geo Stat Number Alg Geo StatNumber Alg Geo Stat Number Alg Geo Stat

117

Page 118: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District 1

Table 1.7.6 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 88 247.2 43.9 238.1 256.4 310.5 282.8 216.1 170.3

Male 43 250.0 49.7 235.2 264.9 317.8 293.4 218.9 170.3Female 45 244.6 37.8 233.5 255.6 305.4 269.7 216.1 196.9

White 54 254.4 43.4 242.8 265.9 321.4 290.6 221.7 194.1African American 12 216.6 45.9 190.6 242.5 283.8 237.5 194.9 144.8Hispanic 9 243.7 42.6 215.8 271.5 296.7 266.3 226.8 181.8Other 13 248.4 36.7 228.5 268.4 302.2 266.3 236.4 190.3

Number 88 242.10 46.52 232.38 251.82 307.75 278.98 212.46 166.27Algebra 88 256.36 44.48 247.06 265.65 331.66 284.95 232.97 173.44Geometry 88 246.28 44.47 236.99 255.57 301.39 276.97 227.16 169.22Statistics 88 245.41 45.88 235.82 254.99 308.27 275.20 209.06 174.94

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

118

Page 119: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 88 N = 43 N = 45 N = 54 N = 12 N = 9 N = 13 N = 88 N = 88 N = 88 N = 88

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

119

Figure 59. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

Page 120: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.7 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile8 38 250.9 38.4 238.7 263.1 309.1 280.6 228.1 196.944 50 244.4 47.9 231.2 257.7 318.3 283.3 210.4 164.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

120

Page 121: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 38 N = 50

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 8 Teacher 44

Figure 60. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

121

Page 122: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

by Teacher Table 1.7.8

MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998,

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile8 38 263.8 49.2 248.2 279.5 335.1 294.7 243.7 184.744 50 239.0 52.1 224.6 253.4 310.5 279.0 195.8 153.3

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

122

Page 123: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 38 N = 50

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 8 Teacher 44

Teacher Figure 61. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by

123

Page 124: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.9 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile8 38 259.0 35.6 247.7 270.4 302.5 291.3 233.0 209.944 50 254.3 50.4 240.3 268.3 340.4 275.2 233.0 173.4

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

124

Page 125: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 38 N = 50

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 8 Teacher 44

Figure 62. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

125

Page 126: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.10 om Achievement in Geometry, District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher MiC Classro

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile8 38 249.9 46.1 235.3 264.6 302.5 277.0 231.1 161.944 50 243.5 43.5 231.5 255.5 301.4 274.5 227.2 169.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

126

Page 127: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 38 N = 50

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 8 Teacher 44

Figure 63. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

127

Page 128: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.11 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile8 38 249.3 36.7 237.6 261.0 300.1 275.2 231.0 174.944 50 242.5 52.0 228.1 256.9 320.1 284.7 209.1 150.6

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

128

Page 129: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 38 N = 50

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 8 Teacher 44

Figure 64. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 1, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

129

Page 130: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District

MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

2

Table 1.7.12

Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 184 240.3 39.8 234.5 246.0 307.9 266.3 210.4 180.5

Male 93 242.2 45.5 233.0 251.5 313.8 273.1 210.4 176.4Female 91 238.3 33.3 231.4 245.1 297.1 264.9 216.1 184.7

White 28 262.1 30.0 251.0 273.2 313.0 283.5 243.9 219.8African American 19 233.6 33.0 218.8 248.4 286.8 256.2 213.2 188.1Hispanic 90 232.7 38.0 224.8 240.5 293.4 256.2 203.6 180.5Other 47 244.5 46.2 231.3 257.7 317.3 271.4 210.4 188.9

Number 184 233.0 43.5 226.7 239.3 302.6 261.7 212.5 153.3Algebra 184 244.0 44.2 237.6 250.4 308.9 275.2 209.9 173.4Geometry 184 249.0 43.2 242.8 255.3 308.6 277.0 227.2 169.2Statistics 184 236.7 44.3 230.3 243.1 312.7 262.1 209.1 174.9

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

130

Page 131: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 184 N = 93 N = 91 N = 28 N = 19 N = 90 N = 47 N = 184 N = 184 N = 184 N = 184

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

Content Figure 65. Distribution of MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by

Strand

131

Page 132: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.13 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

%tile11 41 217.0 35.5 206.1 227.9 278.7 231.9 196.9 180.520 45 256.3 35.4 246.0 266.7 313.8 278.7 231.9 203.635 50 249.1 46.4 236.3 262.0 315.5 281.3 213.2 192.547 48 235.9 29.3 227.6 244.2 280.9 256.2 214.6 188.9

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

132

Page 133: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 41 N = 45 N = 50 N = 48

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 11 Teacher 20 Teacher 35 Teacher 47

Figure 66. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

133

Page 134: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.14

MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile11 41 212.4 48.7 197.5 227.3 279.0 251.9 190.3 101.620 45 239.6 44.9 226.4 252.7 302.6 270.6 212.5 153.335 50 241.8 42.7 230.0 253.7 310.5 270.6 212.5 170.047 48 235.3 32.5 226.1 244.5 284.1 261.7 212.5 190.3

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

134

Page 135: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 41 N = 45 N = 50 N = 48

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 11 Teacher 20 Teacher 35 Teacher 47

Teacher Figure 67. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by

135

Page 136: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.15 m Achievement in Algebra, District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

MiC Classroo

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile11 41 224.0 36.2 212.9 235.1 263.6 250.3 209.9 173.420 45 269.6 30.3 260.7 278.4 315.6 293.4 250.3 209.935 50 245.8 53.2 231.0 260.5 322.7 284.9 209.9 173.447 48 235.3 40.6 223.9 246.8 293.4 263.6 209.9 173.4

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

136

Page 137: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 41 N = 45 N = 50 N = 48

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 11 Teacher 20 Teacher 35 Teacher 47

Figure 68. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

137

Page 138: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.16 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile11 41 229.7 43.3 216.5 243.0 293.7 256.4 205.1 169.220 45 256.8 38.6 245.5 268.1 307.1 285.6 227.2 205.135 50 261.8 44.6 249.5 274.2 316.0 291.7 243.0 185.447 48 244.8 40.4 233.4 256.3 285.6 266.9 227.2 169.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

138

Page 139: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 41 N = 45 N = 50 N = 48

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 11 Teacher 20 Teacher 35 Teacher 47

r Figure 69. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teache

139

Page 140: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.17 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile11 41 214.5 41.4 201.8 227.1 287.8 231.0 174.9 174.920 45 256.6 40.0 244.9 268.3 312.7 287.8 231.0 209.135 50 244.2 45.1 231.7 256.7 320.1 271.9 209.1 174.947 48 229.4 40.5 217.9 240.9 275.2 262.1 209.1 146.2

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

140

Page 141: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 41 N = 45 N = 50 N = 48

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 11 Teacher 20 Teacher 35 Teacher 47

Figure 70. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 2, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

141

Page 142: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District

Table 1.7.18 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

5.3 316.6 264.9 228.8

White 116 292.8 41.2 285.3 300.3 365.7 321.1 263.5 231.9African-American 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic 2 309.8 20.0 282.1 337.5 322.5 316.9 302.7 297.1Other 9 298.3 35.1 275.3 321.2 349.9 316.6 282.1 254.9

Number 127 283.3 39.7 276.4 290.2 350.9 310.5 256.8 212.5Algebra 127 290.2 43.4 282.7 297.8 360.0 319.2 263.6 233.0Geometry 127 292.6 36.0 286.3 298.8 346.4 315.8 277.0 243.0Statistics 127 281.5 43.3 273.9 289.0 341.3 312.7 247.8 209.1

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

3

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 127 293.4 40.5 286.4 300.5 365.7 321.1 263.5 231.9

Male 72 297.9 40.0 288.7 307.1 368.3 324.5 263.5 234.4Female 55 287.6 40.7 276.8 298.3 34

142

Page 143: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 127 N = 72 N = 55 N = 116 N = 0 N = 2 N = 9 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127 N = 127

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

up, and by Figure 71. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Gro

Content Strand

143

Page 144: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.19 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 595% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

%tile9 1 231.9 231.9 231.9 231.9 231.916 126 293.9 40.3 286.9 300.9 365.7 321.1 264.2 231.9

144

Page 145: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 1 N = 126

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 9 Teacher 16

Figure 72. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

145

Page 146: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Teacher Table 1.7.20

MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile9 1 228.2 228.2 228.2 228.2 228.216 126 283.7 39.6 276.8 290.6 351.4 310.5 261.7 212.5

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

146

Page 147: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 1 N = 126

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 9 Teacher 16

Teacher Figure 73. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by

147

Page 148: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.21 m Achievement in Algebra, District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher MiC Classroo

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile9 1 250.3 250.3 250.3 250.3 250.316 126 290.6 43.4 283.0 298.1 360.0 320.9 263.6 233.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

148

Page 149: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 1 N = 126

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 9 Teacher 16

Figure 74. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

149

Page 150: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.22 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998,by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile9 1 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.016 126 293.0 35.9 286.7 299.2 346.4 315.8 277.0 243.0

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

150

Page 151: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 1 N = 126

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 9 Teacher 16

r Figure 75. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teache

151

Page 152: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.23 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile9 1 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.0 231.016 126 281.9 43.3 274.3 289.4 341.3 312.7 247.8 209.1

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

152

Page 153: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 1 N = 126

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 9 Teacher 16

Figure 76. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 3, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

153

Page 154: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

District

MiC Classroom Achievement in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, by Ethnic Group, and by Content Strand

4

Table 1.7.24

N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tileOverall 108 230.8 50.0 221.3 240.2 298.6 266.3 196.9 144.9

Male 48 225.3 48.7 211.5 239.1 282.1 263.5 194.9 144.9Female 60 235.1 51.0 222.2 248.0 306.5 271.3 201.9 144.0

White 4 242.0 35.6 207.2 276.9 277.7 260.1 226.5 202.8African-American 23 238.1 51.6 217.0 259.2 311.2 275.9 212.7 147.4Hispanic 28 224.2 45.5 207.4 241.1 279.0 260.5 194.9 144.9Other 53 230.2 53.0 215.9 244.5 296.6 269.7 196.9 137.9

Number 108 242.8 45.3 234.2 251.3 310.5 270.6 212.5 153.3Algebra 108 227.0 46.6 218.2 235.8 290.4 263.6 209.9 124.1Geometry 108 225.6 57.8 214.7 236.5 293.7 277.0 169.2 120.4Statistics 108 236.8 45.8 228.2 245.5 300.1 262.1 209.1 174.9

95% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

154

Page 155: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 108 N = 48 N = 60 N = 4 N = 23 N = 28 N = 53 N = 108 N = 108 N = 108 N = 108

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100

All Gender Ethnic Group Content Strands

Male Female White Afr-Am Hisp Other Number Alg Geom Stat

Figure 77. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Gender, Ethnic Gro Content Strand

up, and by

155

Page 156: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.25 MiC Classroom Achievement in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID N Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 595% Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

%tile28 35 191.5 47.8 175.7 207.3 262.1 226.8 144.9 127.434 29 248.3 36.4 235.0 261.5 302.6 282.1 221.7 202.336 44 250.5 41.1 238.3 262.6 300.1 273.8 247.8 170.3

156

Page 157: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 35 N = 29 N = 44

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 28 Teacher 34 Teacher 36

Figure 78. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

157

Page 158: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.26 MiC Classroom Achievement in Number, District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile28 35 211.5 48.1 195.6 227.4 264.4 246.5 190.3 137.834 29 250.8 38.1 237.0 264.7 312.1 270.6 228.2 190.336 44 262.3 33.2 252.5 272.1 310.5 279.0 251.9 190.3

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

158

Page 159: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 35 N = 29 N = 44

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 28 Teacher 34 Teacher 36

Teacher Figure 79. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Number, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by

159

Page 160: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.27 MiC Classroom Achievement in Algebra, District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile28 35 199.6 47.0 184.1 215.2 263.6 221.4 173.4 124.134 29 239.3 39.9 224.8 253.8 290.0 263.6 209.9 173.436 44 240.7 41.4 228.5 253.0 300.2 263.6 209.9 173.4

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

160

Page 161: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 35 N = 29 N = 44

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 28 Teacher 34 Teacher 36

Figure 80. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Algebra, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

161

Page 162: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.28 MiC Classroom Achievement in Geometry, District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile28 35 182.2 49.2 165.9 198.5 265.1 205.1 144.8 120.434 29 250.5 49.2 232.6 268.4 308.6 285.6 227.2 169.236 44 243.6 50.4 228.7 258.5 293.7 285.6 221.7 127.7

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

162

Page 163: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 35 N = 29 N = 44

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 28 Teacher 34 Teacher 36

r Figure 81. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Geometry, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teache

163

Page 164: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Table 1.7.29 MiC Classroom Achievement in Statistics, District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

Teacher ID Sample Mean SD Lower Upper 95%tile 75%tile 25%tile 5%tile28 35 209.2 45.1 194.2 224.1 279.0 239.4 174.9 130.734 29 246.1 43.1 230.4 261.8 312.7 262.1 209.1 174.936 44 252.7 38.3 241.4 264.0 300.1 287.8 231.0 174.9

Confidence Interval Score distribution percentiles

164

Page 165: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

N = 35 N = 29 N = 44

Band 1

Band 5

Band 4

Band 3

Band 2

400

250

100 Teacher 28 Teacher 34 Teacher 36

Figure 82. Distribution of Classroom Achievement in Statistics, MiC Classrooms in District 4, Grade 7, in 1997-1998, by Teacher

165

Page 166: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Appendix A

166

Page 167: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

The purposes of the longitudinal/cross-sectional study of the impact of Mathematics in Context (MiC) on student performance were (a) to determine the mathematical knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and levels of student performance as a consequence of studying MiC for over three years; and (b) to compare student knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and levels of performance of students using MiC with those using conventional mathematics curricula. The research model for this study was an adaptation of a structural model for monitoring changes in school mathematics (Romberg, 1987, described in Chapter 2). The outcome variables for this model are - knowledge and understanding, and application. For analytic purposes we assumed that variation in classroom achievement based on the measures developed for these variables can be captured in progress maps for classroom achievement. There were three questions that the study was designed to answer: 1. What is the impact of the MiC instructional approach on student performance? 2. How is this impact different from that of traditional instruction on students performance? 3. What variables associated with classroom instruction account for variation in student

performance? To answer these questions an analysis plan involving seven steps has been planned. Step One: Creating an Overall Progress Map The dependent variable used to answer each of the questions is an index of “Classroom Achievement (CA)” derived from data from student responses to eight tests {four External Assessments (EA) based on NAEP and TIMSS items, and four Problem Solving Assessments (PSA) developed by the staff of the Freudenthal Institute. One form of each test was given to students at each of the grades 5, 6, 7 and 8. From the raw scores on these tests the CA index was derived by the research team at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) using “Rasch measurement models” that allow one to combine information from different tests administered at different times onto a single scale. The product of this step is a single CA scale. Step Two: Answering Question #1 – Grade-Level-by-Year As shown in Figure 1, the overall study involves seventeen studies: eight grade-level-by year studies that can be related for cross-sectional comparisons, three cross-grade studies, three cross-year studies, and three longitudinal comparisons.

167

Page 168: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Grade 7Grade 7

Cross-Grade

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 6

Grade 8

Grade 7

Grade 8

Cross-Year

Cross-Year

Cross-Year

Cross-Grade

Cross-Grade

L o n g i t u d i n a l

L o n g i t u d i n a l

L o n g i t u d i n a l

1 9 9 7 - 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 8 - 1 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0

To answer “Question 1” the CA index was used to examine the performance of all MiC students in the four sites at each grade level (the eight grade-level-by-year descriptions of performance of all MiC students). Comparisons of performance on CA then was derived for the different sites, classes, teachers, gender of students, ethnicity of students, etc. Step Three: Answering Question #1 – Cross-Grade, Cross-Year From the analyses done in Step Two we made the three cross-grade comparisons, and the three cross-year cross-sectional studies indicated in Figure 1. These comparisons yield pictures of general student progress in performance as a consequence of instruction using MiC. Step Four: Answering Question #1 – Longitudinally Next we examined the three longitudinal descriptions also shown in Figure 1. However, since the student data-base must be restricted to those MiC students that participated in two or three years of the study (study transiency was high), several cohorts of students examined over the two (or three) years with respect to the overall index (CA). Step Five: Answering Question #2 To answer Question 2 only the MiC data from the two sites where similar data from students in classes using conventional instructional materials was gathered. The comparisions were with respect to the eight grade-level-by-year studies, followed by the cross-grade, cross-year, and longitudinal comparisions. Step Six: Answering Question #3 – Creating Composite Indices Data for both MiC and conventional students at the two sites were used to examine the relationship between variation in classroom achievement (CA), aggregated by strand, test, or total performance can be attributed to variations in opportunity to learn with understanding (OTLu), preceding achievement (PA), method of instruction (I), and school context (SC).

168

Page 169: Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of Mathematics …micimpact.wceruw.org/working_papers/LCSWorkingPaper33.pdf · 2005. 9. 27. · Overview The data in this Technical

Step Seven: Answering Question #3 – Analyses Since indices for each of these composite variables was constructed three different analyses were planned. First, for the grade-level-by-year studies we compared similar groups of students on CA. Second, linear regression was used to examine this relationship for the eight grade-level-by-year studies. Third, since the composite variables were constructed from several sources that reflect the original 14 variables structural model, we calculated path coefficients relating most of the variables in the model using structural equations.

169