An intensification approach to double-block algebra: A pilot implementation of Intensified Algebra in a large urban school district

ABSTRACT

Double-block instruction has become a popular strategy for supporting struggling mathematics students in algebra I. Despite its widespread adoption, little consistent evidence supports the attributes of a successful double-block design or the effectiveness of this instructional strategy. In this study, the authors examine a pilot implementation of a double-block strategy—instantiated in the program Intensified Algebra—that combines core algebra content with insights from research on how students learn mathematics and explicit noncognitive supports focused on key attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors essential to student success. The results of the study show that, when implemented with fidelity, participation in the program significantly increased student achievement on the state end-of-course algebra I assessment.

KEYWORDS:

• Algebra I
• double-block algebra
• double-dose algebra
• Intensified Algebra
• noncognitive

Notes

1. Their analysis did, however, show a significant increase in algebra course grades.

2. Reporting of this trend is based on several Intensified Algebra developers' participation in the Urban Mathematics Leadership Network.

3. An additional 10 students were enrolled in Intensified Algebra as an inclusion class; they were excluded from the sample used in this analysis.

4. An additional 37 seventh- to 12th-grade students were enrolled.

5. Students enrolled in an additional mathematics support course typically scored at the lowest level (Level 1, inadequate level of success) on their prior year mathematics assessment.

6. The additional covariates serve to control for any group differences not accounted for by the balancing process.

7. The treatment group n remained 277 while the effective n of the weighted comparison group was reduced from 1,735 to 242.

8. The unweighted n for the high fidelity group was 130; the weighted ns for the low- and high-fidelity groups were 130 and 156, respectively. The further decline of the control group weighted n relative to the treatment n further reflects the dissimilarity of the groups prior to balancing through weighting.