Summaries of research on JUMP Math.
JUMP Math Book Fund Results Reveal Significant Student Gains for Fourth Year in a Row!
The results from fall and spring assessments revealed significant gains for students participating in JUMP Math’s 20142015 National Book Fund. A total of 248 students in grades 3 to 9 completed the math computation subtest of the WRAT4 in the fall and spring of the 20142015 school year.
Here are the highlights!
 NBF students grew in math achievement at 2.9 times the rate of the WRAT4 standardization sample.
 The percentage of students scoring in the ‘average’ range or higher on the WRAT4 increased from 38% to 55%
Download the full report: 20142015
Download previous years' reports: 20132014  20122013  20112012
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 bestselling 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, peerreviewed data presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Montreal, March 31  April 2, 2011
The Impact of JUMP Math in England  Lambeth (2009)
JUMP Math has worked for five years with the Borough of Lambeth, an innercity 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 Year6 exams in 2009. One group of 353 students used JUMP Math for two years, beginning in Year5, and another group of 110 students used it for one year, beginning at the start of Year6.
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 Year5. By end of Year6, after two years of instruction using the JUMP Math materials and approach, fully 60% of this cohort were at or above grade level (a fivefold 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 Year6. By the end of Year6, 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.
Lambeth (2007)
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 "What Works for Children with Mathematical Difficulties?" (pages 3536). 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, "JUMP in Lambeth 2007: Evaluation and Impact on the KS2 National Tests", 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 agerelated expectations) on the national tests at the end of Y6." (Note: Y6 is equivalent to Canadian Grade 6.)
Four hundred fiftyfour students, 90% of whom were at least 2 years below agerelated expectations at the start of the school year, received 4 to 10 months of JUMP instruction during the 200607 school year. The national test results at the end of the year were particularly strong among children who were 2 years below agerelated expectations:
"Of the 154 children who were at Level 3c preJUMP (that is, 2 years below agerelated expectations), 107 children (69%) were at or close to agerelated 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 agerelated expectations), even though 60% were more than 2 years below agerelated expectations at the start of the pilot.
The report also notes, "Half of the JUMP children (225, 50%) made at least two sublevels of progress through the year. This was an acceleration on their progress in earlier years (otherwise they would not have been so far below agerelated 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 followup 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."
Lambeth (2006)
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 agerelated 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 posttest 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 selfesteem 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 sublevels... Many teachers felt that the improvements in children's understanding was considerably greater than their test scores might indicate."
JUMP MathBrock 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 36 participated in the study.
A pretest 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 pretest; after the implementation of the JUMP Math program, 100% of students passed the post test (average math posttest 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 onemonth 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 in class 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 postsurvey 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 confidencebuilding.
 Statistical analysis of math confidence scores reflects an overall growth and statistically significant increase in math confidence from preJUMP program implementation to postJUMP 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 postsurvey said they were good at math. 61.7% of respondents to the postsurvey 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.
Related Information