Math
RMC Research Summary
In the Year 2 math comparison study, the mean treatment group scores increased significantly (paired t test; p < .05) from pretest to posttest, whereas the comparison group scores did not (paired t test; p < .05), but the treatment group’s posttest scores were not significantly (independent t test; p < .05) higher than the comparison group’s posttest scores.
| Year 2 Student Writing Results | |||||
| Treatment Group | Comparison Group | ||||
| Fall 2006 Pretest (Prior to use of FASTT Math or Math Trail) | Spring 2007 Posttest (After use of FASTT Math and Math Trail) | Fall 2006 Pretest (No use of FASTT Math or Math Trail) | Spring 2007 Posttest (No use of FASTT Math or Math Trail) | ||
| Math skills overall (using geometric sense, using probability and statistics, using algebraic sense, communicating math understanding, solving problems and reasoning logically, making math connections, using measurement, and using number sense) | 6.39 | 8.04 | 7.92 | 7.98 | |
Note: Treatment and Comparison group students were statistically similar with regard to grade level and Individual Education Plan status. Treatment group n = 71. Comparison group n = 65. Maximum possible score = 18 points.
The increase in the treatment groups’ posttest scores may be due to students using FASTT Math, participating in Math Trail projects, or using both interventions.
The spring 2007 survey asked teachers to report whether the technology had improved the students’ attitude toward math to a great extent, to some extent, not very much, or not at all. They indicated that the technology had improved the students’ attitude to a great extent (67%) or to some extent (33%). In the spring 2007 interviews the teachers explained that FASTT Math and the Math Trail projects made math enjoyable for the students, which increased their motivation to do math.