Researchers studied how DCPS students in Grades 1–6 performed on the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment across three academic years. The research, which uses quasi-experimental matching techniques to isolate the impact of Zearn Math on student achievement, compares a sample of 990 students who consistently completed three or more Zearn lessons each week with a control sample of 990 matched students who did not consistently use Zearn<cms-citation-text>[2]<cms-citation-text>. Unlike a standard correlational analysis, this method allows differences in outcomes to be more confidently attributed to Zearn Math and not to other variables.
Researchers found:
- Students who consistently used Zearn Math outscored matched peers by 7.5 points on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic, gaining 11 more weeks of math learning in one academic year.
- Zearn’s impact was even greater for students who initially placed two or more grade levels below; these students scored 17.4 scale score points higher than matched peers—equivalent to an additional 24 weeks of math learning in one academic year.
- Across subgroups, students who consistently used Zearn Math scored significantly higher on the i-Ready Diagnostic than matched peers who did not use Zearn<cms-citation-text>[3]<cms-citation-text>.
- Black and/or Latino students, at-risk students, multilingual learners, and students in special education who consistently used Zearn exceeded the i-Ready Diagnostic interim assessment benchmark for typical growth, while matched students who did not use Zearn fell short of expected growth.
- Across all i-Ready Diagnostic placement levels, students who consistently used Zearn Math were more likely to improve their placement level on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 1<text-style-figure>
Students who consistently used Zearn Math outscored matched peers by 7.5 points on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic. Zearn’s impact was even greater for students who placed two or more grade levels below on the fall i-Ready Diagnostic; these students scored 17.4 scale score points higher than matched peers.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 2<text-style-figure>
Students who consistently used Zearn Math gained an additional 11 weeks of math learning compared to matched peers. Students two or more grade levels below gained 24 more weeks of math learning with Zearn.
Across all placement levels, DCPS students who consistently used Zearn Math throughout the school year exceeded the i-Ready Diagnotic’s 30-week benchmark for typical growth. Students who placed two or more grade levels below on the fall assessment outpaced the i-Ready Diagnostic typical growth by 21 weeks.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 3<text-style-figure>
Across subgroups, students who consistently used Zearn Math scored significantly higher on the i-Ready Diagnostic than matched peers who did not use Zearn.
Students in special education who consistently used Zearn increased an average of 34 points on the spring diagnostic—23.2 points higher and more than double the growth of matched peers who did not use Zearn.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 4<text-style-figure>
Black and/or Latino students, at-risk students, multilingual learners, and students in special education who consistently used Zearn exceeded the i-Ready Diagnostic interim assessment benchmark for typical growth, while matched students who did not use Zearn fell short of expected growth.
Across each subgroup, students who consistently used Zearn Math during the school year surpassed typical growth, while matched students who did not use Zearn fell short of one-year typical growth benchmarks.
<text-style-figure>FIGURE 5<text-style-figure>
Across all i-Ready Diagnostic placement levels, students who consistently used Zearn Math were more likely to improve their placement level on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic.
Students who placed two or more grade levels below were 1.5 times more likely to move up at least one placement level on the spring i-Ready Diagnostic with consistent Zearn usage. Ninety-two percent of these students moved up a full level or more.
ESSA Tier 2 Efficacy Research
This study was designed to meet required rigor of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for quasi-experimental research and to meet the criteria for an ESSA Tier 2 (Moderate) rating in the ESSA guidelines for evidence-based interventions. The study uses quasi-experimental matching methods to create baseline equivalency between treatment and control groups along major confounding factors. Reference the full technical appendix to learn more.
