Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Best school sponsored math enrichment programs?

[/quote]



My statement wasn’t based on research, and I haven’t actually looked for any, but I would be interested if anyone else has found some. I suspect that the nature of the problems (more discreet math and non-routine problems) and student collaboration during practice is what lead to the impact we saw, but I couldn't say for sure. My claim about growth was based on data we looked at, however.

At the end of the 2012-13 school year, the teacher I worked with compared data she collected on the two enrichment programs that ran for most of the school year, ALEKS and MOEMS. In the ALEKS program, students met three times per week for 30 minutes each session and could work at home online for additional time. In MOEMS, students met once a week for 40 minutes and were given problems to work on at home. In MOEMS sessions, students prepared for the five MOEMS contests. After the contests were over, we continued to have enrichment sessions such as game sessions and proof writing sessions.

The teacher I work with wanted to look at the impact the programs had on student growth measured by the Ohio Achievement Assessments because value-added is an important measure in teacher evaluations here. What she found was that the ALEKS program had no impact on growth for students at any level. However, MOEMS had a significant impact on growth for students at all levels, including gifted students. This year the teacher who took over teaching the fifth grade gifted cluster from her was concerned because he wasn’t seeing the growth in gifted students that she had seen last year. The few students showing significant growth were participating in MOEMS, but we have far fewer students from that cluster participating this year. As a result, he will be working with the program next year, hoping that teacher involvement will increase the number of students involved.

The other data we looked at was AMC 8 scores from last year and this year. Students who participated in MOEMS last year had an average increase of 7.5 points on the AMC 8 this year. Students who didn’t participate in MOEMS last year had an average 1.2 point increase in their AMC 8 scores.

Unless students were randomised to attend ALEKS or MOEMS sessions - and the results analysed on the basis of where students were randomised to, regardless of whether they actually attended - this comparison has no value. Were they?

( My intuition is that you're basically right, *but* that there will be significant numbers of students, including some with huge potential, not reached by any optional competition programme. My first step would be to make actually competing in the competitions optional, and advertise that it's perfectly fine to come to sessions to work on problems and never actually compete.)

I wouldn't say useless. It tells you that there is some combination of the relative strength (and potential to improve) of the students choosing MOEMS (relative to those who don't so choose), and the benefits of doing the MOEMS activities, that leads to improvements in other scores.

It's like if I tell you x+y=7.5, you can't determine x or y, but the equation certainly tells you something about (x,y).

--------------------------------------------

One thing I thought of when I asked the question a few posts up was, it may sometimes happen that someone that didn't think of themselves as super strong in math, may do really well in a competition, realize they've underestimated themselves, and improve a lot. (I.e. the competition could "discover" unrecognized/undeveloped talent, which is subsequently developed.)

It would be really cool if someone did do some randomized research on this. Now I'm really curious. Given the STEM obsession at present, maybe it's been done.


I'm a fan of wide IQ-testing for this reason. I like the idea of casting a broad net. DD was assigned to sit next to a super-mathy kid for a while this year who liked to quiz her on math not yet covered in school (not sure if he lacks social skills, is just super psyched about math, likes my DD, or what). Even through this, I think she realized she had more skill at math than she knew. Actually, this is kind of a cute story about the value of gifted programs, now that I think about it.

You're right that the self-selective nature of the groups is problematic. However, since she could find no evidence of impact on students' outcomes from ALEKS, she couldn't justify writing another grant proposal to continue the program.

The students are welcome to attend sessions without competing. Most choose to compete. A few need encouragement to try at least one of the five contests. Of those, most of them continue to take the contests, but a few don't. They simply attend the practice sessions and skip the session on days we have a contest.



Some students are surprised by how well they do, and the contests do build their confidence. Many math competitions are touted as being good for discovering math talent. However, the opposite can also be the case, especially with gifted and perfectionist students. We are careful to explain the these are contests and they are different from tests. We tell them that whereas the tests they take in class cover material they already know, math contests are meant to challenge even the brightest and strongest math students. Students who are used to routinely scoring 100% on tests can be discouraged when faced with problems they can't solve, so we try to prepare them for the challenge and encourage them to keep trying if they are less successful than they expected at first. We also allow students who do really well to compete up when the rules allow, so our strongest students are always challenged.

My guess would be that it has something to do with developing problem solving skills as well as the logic involved in thinking about discrete math topics.

There may also be another factor, along the lines of RR's waxing on about peer relationships (girls lifting each other up) in this talk.

Given that several towns (e.g. Montclair, NJ) have willfully ruined their 'magnet' schools by making entrance to them only possible via lottery i.e. have already randomised the sample, this type of research ought to be possible.

In terms of research, you might have a look at Claude Steele et al.'s work on stereotype threat. I don't know whether anyone in K-12 education has thought through the implications of that work (in social psychology) for math enrichment and competition design, but I'd want to be sure the structure is truly open to everyone. Harvey Mudd's experiences reorienting STEM in an inclusive direction might also be useful.