Summaries of research on JUMP Math.
National Book Fund Results Reveal Significant Student Gains for Fifth Year in a Row!
The results from fall and spring assessments revealed significant gains for students participating in JUMP Math’s 2015-2016 National Book Fund for the fifth year in a row. A total of 208 students in grades 4 to 7 completed the math computation subtest of the WRAT-4 in the fall and spring of the 2015-2016 school year.
Here are the highlights!
- On average, math achievement of students grew at 2.4 times the rate of the WRAT-4 standardization sample
- The percentage of students scoring in the ‘above average’ range on the WRAT-4 increased from 12% to 20%
- Mean percentile rank on the WRAT-4 increased from 30th to 42nd from fall to spring.
JUMP Math’s National Book Fund program awards free JUMP Math resources to high-needs classrooms across Canada. The National Book Fund was made possible by the generous support of lead funder TD Bank Group. More about the National Book Fund here.
Randomized Controlled Trial Finds JUMP Math Students' Knowledge Grew At Twice the Rate of Control Group
A team from Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the University of Toronto conducted a randomized controlled study which followed 272 students randomly selected from 29 classrooms, in 18 schools, in a rural Canadian school board. Teachers (classes) were randomly selected to use either JUMP Math or the incumbent math program, and the teachers in each group received equivalent training in the respective programs. Researchers found that the math knowledge of children using JUMP Math grew twice as much as that of children using the incumbent program, one of Canada’s two best-selling math programs.
~ Solomon, T., Martinussen, R., Dupuis, A., Gervan, S., Chaban, P., Tannock, R., Ferguson, B. (2011) Investigation of a Cognitive Science Based Approach to Mathematics Instruction, peer-reviewed data presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Montreal, March 31 - April 2, 2011
The Borough of Lambeth, UK raises its year-6 pass rate by 10% (versus 2% for England as a whole), since introducing JUMP in 2007
The Borough of Lambeth school authority tracked two groups of students who wrote the year-6 national exams in 2009, one of which used JUMP for two years and the other of which used JUMP for one year. Only 12% of the first group of 353 struggling students were at or above grade level at the beginning of year-5 and many were several grades behind; yet 60% of this group passed the national exams at the end of year-6 (a 5-fold rise in pass rates). A second group of 150 students used JUMP for one year. Only 28% of these students were at or above grade level at the start of year-6, many being several grades behind, yet 62% passed the year-6 exam. The Borough's year-6 pass rate rose from 6% below the national average in 2007 to 2% above in 2010.
In 1998, the percentage of children achieving the expected level in mathematics in The Borough of Lambeth trailed the national average by 9% (49% vs 58%). By 2007, the year that JUMP was introduced in Lambeth, Lambeth's pass rate had risen to 71%, but remained 6% below the national average. Three years later, Lambeth's year-6 mathematics achievement exceeds the national average by 2%.
This progress is a result of many factors -- Lambeth teachers and children have worked hard with a range of supportive resources -- however, Nikki Aduba, the former Mathematics Consultant for the Borough of Lambeth, states that "JUMP has made a hugely significant contribution to the success of children who are now working through secondary school as competent and confident mathematicians".
To date, the gains in Lambeth have been achieved using JUMP primarily to assist those children who are having the most difficultly with the existing math programs; however results obtained in Canada suggest that it is equally effective for all students, including those considered to be "gifted" in math.
Toronto teacher duplicates dramatic gains for successive classes
During her first year using JUMP, a Toronto teacher lifted her class average ranking from the 66th percentile on the grade 5 TOMA test to 92nd percentile on the grade 6 test, in September of the following year. Her next class improved its average ranking from the 54th to 98th percentiles.
The teacher reported that she followed the JUMP lesson plans more closely with her second class. In both cases, the lowest post-JUMP ranking equaled or exceeded the highest pre-JUMP ranking. In addition, all but one child in each class wrote the Mathematica Pythagoras and 14 of 17 achieved distinction (the Pythagoras math contest emphasizes problem solving and is written by approximately 5% of Canadian grade 6 students - in general, Canada's "top' math students).
The Impact of JUMP Math in England - Lambeth (2009)
JUMP Math has worked for five years with the Borough of Lambeth, an inner-city area of London which is the third neediest borough in England. Several independent studies of JUMP Math have been conducted by the Lambeth school board. The results are contained in reports written by Nikki Aduba, Mathematics Consultant.
The results presented in the 2009 report from Lambeth are for two groups of students who wrote the Year-6 exams in 2009. One group of 353 students used JUMP Math for two years, beginning in Year-5, and another group of 110 students used it for one year, beginning at the start of Year-6.
Of the first group of 353 students, only 12% were performing at or above grade level when they began using JUMP Math at the start of Year-5. By end of Year-6, after two years of instruction using the JUMP Math materials and approach, fully 60% of this cohort were at or above grade level (a five-fold increase).
Of the second group of 110 students, 28% were performing at or above grade level when introduced to JUMP Math, at the beginning of Year-6. By the end of Year-6, after one year of instruction using the JUMP Math materials and approach, 62% of this cohort were at or above grade level.
The greater rate of improvement among children who used JUMP Math for two years vs. one, appears to bear out teachers’ qualitative assessments that progress with JUMP Math accelerates over time.
In 2007, Lambeth experienced a rise in its national test scores in mathematics by 7 percentage points, moving from close to the bottom to within two points of the national average. Based on JUMP Math's success in Lambeth, the program was recognized by the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families in the report "" (pages 35-36). Lambeth was awarded a grant by the London Challenge to make JUMP Math available to more students in Lambeth and other boroughs.
The 2007 report,, contains the following history of the JUMP Math pilots in Lambeth:
"In the 2006 summer term, 24 Lambeth primary schools participated in a pilot programme to evaluate the JUMP mathematics methods and materials... Following on from the success of the pilot, work continued and developed in 40 (out of 59) Lambeth primary schools... In all schools teachers where asked to target those children who were not expected to achieve level 4 (ie. meet age-related expectations) on the national tests at the end of Y6." (Note: Y6 is equivalent to Canadian Grade 6.)
Four hundred fifty-four students, 90% of whom were at least 2 years below age-related expectations at the start of the school year, received 4 to 10 months of JUMP instruction during the 2006-07 school year. The national test results at the end of the year were particularly strong among children who were 2 years below age-related expectations:
"Of the 154 children who were at Level 3c pre-JUMP (that is, 2 years below age-related expectations), 107 children (69%) were at or close to age-related expectations one school year later." (60% passed the exams and 9% came within a few marks.) Overall, 33% of the students achieved level 4 on the exams (met age-related expectations), even though 60% were more than 2 years below age-related expectations at the start of the pilot.
The report also notes, "Half of the JUMP children (225, 50%) made at least two sub-levels of progress through the year. This was an acceleration on their progress in earlier years (otherwise they would not have been so far below age-related expectations at the end of Year 5)."
"Improvements in confidence and attitude of all children participating in the program are almost universally reported…” and the "effective use of the JUMP materials in accordance with the programme's principles and methodology has the potential to support teachers to raise the quality of their teaching (and therefore children's learning) from satisfactory or good to outstanding. There is a growing body of evidence that this is happening…”
Vancouver School Board (2007)
Lavana Heel, a consultant with Learning Services at the Vancouver school board, interviewed approximately one hundred teachers after they had attended JUMP Math training sessions in the board. She asked the teachers to talk about what had led them to participate in JUMP Math training, and what aspects of the JUMP Math program they thought would be helpful in their teaching. Lavana then conducted follow-up interviews with twelve of the teachers who used the program through the school year and who had attended regular study sessions sponsored by the board. These teachers were asked a number of questions about the effect of JUMP Math on children's conceptual understanding of math (the questions were based on the work of Reuven Feuerstein).
The report notes that the interviews "...revealed definite themes that are supported by the recommended interventions and propositions in brain research such as those supported by David Sousa (How the Brain Learns) or De Fina and Fifer (The Neuropsychology of Mathematics)."
The report found "an overwhelming agreement" among teachers "...that the infrastructure and process of JUMP math develops in teachers a confidence, self efficacy and a sense that they can do math and even love it. Teachers have noted that not only the students but also teachers themselves are beginning to transfer the skill set and strategies to other content areas."
According to the report, teachers who used the program for a year felt that it "...unfolds students' thinking skills, promotes independent thinking and serves to create excitement and curiousity" (see conclusion of report). Teachers also felt the program helped students to explore mathematical ideas systematically, to determine relevant and irrelevant information in a problem, to develop "logical thinking," to organize their thinking before they respond to a task, to develop "a feeling of internalized competence" and to articulate what they had learned. Teachers also believed the program helped students develop greater confidence and a willingness to take risks, and fostered "a sense of connection or belonging to the larger group."
In the summer term of 2006, prior to the larger implementation reported above, 24 schools in Lambeth, England, used the JUMP Math program with children who were at least 2 years below age-related expectations. Based on the success of this pilot, the program was then expanded to 40 schools (as reported above).
The attached report, "JUMP Mathematics: Lambeth Pilot Programme, Summer 2006," contains the results of interviews with teachers and data on pre- and post-test scores (samples questions from the national exams were given to the students before and after the pilot).
The report notes:
"The response to the JUMP pilot has been overwhelmingly positive, from the interest shown at the time that schools were first invited to participate, to the enthusiasm of the final review meeting on 18 July. Without exception all participating teachers want further involvement with JUMP..."
"All teachers reported a significant improvement in attitude in the vast majority of pupils participating in the pilot. The children became far more confident and were eager to speak out and actively participate during mathematics lessons. Teachers also commented on increased self-esteem of pupils who had hitherto (for years in some cases) seen themselves as failures in the subject. Behaviour also improved; children who had been disruptive during lessons were engaged, focused and enthusiastic during the JUMP sessions."
Even though the summer pilot lasted only two months, "A significant number of children improved their test scores enough to move one, or even two sub-levels... Many teachers felt that the improvements in children's understanding was considerably greater than their test scores might indicate."
JUMP Math-Brock University Pilot Study (2005)
This study was a collaborative effort between JUMP, the Institute for Enterprise Education (IEE), and the Brock Enterprise Education Program (B.Ed. program). The timeline of the study was February 21- March 11, 2005. 160 students from grades 3-6 participated in the study.
A pre-test was administered to the students to get a baseline measure of their math ability prior to the implementation of the JUMP math program. After the duration of the JUMP math program, a version of the same test was administered to these students in order to measure any change.
The following is a selected summary of the results:
- Of 160 students who participated in this study, 0% of students passed the pre-test; after the implementation of the JUMP Math program, 100% of students passed the post test (average math post-test scores by classroom ranging from 77%-92%).
- Of 160 students, the average test score improvement was 74%.
After the implementation of the JUMP math program, 100% of students showed an improvement in their post test scores (minimum improvement was 22%, maximum improvement was 100%).
JUMP for Joy! The Impact of JUMP on Student Math Confidence (2004)
This study examined 14 classrooms in 4 elementary schools in Toronto, Ontario over a four week period. A survey was designed by JUMP in consultation with academics from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE/University of Toronto). The survey was administered by JUMP staff at the conclusion of the one-month study with the help of10 interns from OISE.
100% of participating teachers said that students showed an improvement in student confidence in subjects other than mathematics as a result of using the JUMP Math program.
100% of participating teachers said they would use JUMP inclass next year.
100% of participating teachers said that their weaker students were more enthusiastic about doing math as a result of the JUMP Math program.
Effects of the JUMP Program on Elementary Students’ Math Confidence (2004)
Based on a graduate research study conducted by Kaitlin Hughes at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto, this study examines the JUMP program and its effect on students’ math confidence. A pre- and post-survey were administered to 120 students in six different classrooms at three different schools. Participants ranged from grades 3 and 4 students who had never worked with JUMP curriculum before.
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data shows that there is “a very significant relationship between students’ math confidence and the JUMP program”. Analysis reveals that “students both enjoy the program and feel more confident about their math education after receiving the program”.
- Research shows that with the pervasiveness of math anxiety and negative attitudes towards math in students, there is a need for math program to encourage confidence-building.
- Statistical analysis of math confidence scores reflects an overall growth and statistically significant increase in math confidence from pre-JUMP program implementation to post-JUMP program implementation, with the most growth occurring in males.
- Of those students who participated in this study, most felt confident about their math work after having completed the JUMP program. JUMP students said they were successful in doing mathematics, they were not worried about doing math, and they felt confident about their skill level. 57.4% of respondents to the post-survey said they were good at math. 61.7% of respondents to the post-survey said they don’t worry about doing math in class.
- Of the 74 students out of 116 who identified a difference between JUMP math and regular math curricula, 88% commented that they favoured JUMP to regular math or like both programs. Students were able to notice a change in their math program and most students responded positively to the change.