Batchelder, J. S., & Rachal, J. R. (2000a). Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 120-133.
Reviewed: September 2019
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) - math (general mathematics domain) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
219.90 |
218.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) - reading (literacy domain) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
226.30 |
224.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 79% | |
| White | 21% |
The study took place in an adult education program in a prison.
The initial sample consisted of 71 learners. These learners lacked a high school credential and volunteered for the adult education program at the prison. Learners were male, and their average age was 30.5. Seventy-nine percent were African American, and 21 percent were Caucasian. Thirty-five percent scored below an eighth-grade level on the Test of Adult Basic Education.
The computer-assisted instruction (CAI) program was a supplement to the traditional high school equivalency instruction provided to inmates. During one of the instructional hours each day, learners were pulled out of the classroom to use a "tutorial/drill and practice" software, which included math and English instruction. Learners used the program independently in the computer lab with no additional instruction from a teacher, although they could ask technical questions about using the computers.
Members of the comparison group received the existing instructional practices offered by the prison to help prepare learners for high school equivalency exams. Eighty hours of instruction were offered over a four-week period, with four hours of instruction per day. Each day, learners received one hour each of math, English, history, and science instruction. Instructors taught 10 to 15 learners in each class.
Support staff provided technical assistance to learners using CAI in the computer lab. The study did not discuss any other support for implementation.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Batchelder, J. S., & Rachal, J. R. (2000b). Effects of a computer-assisted-instruction program in a prison setting: An experimental study. Journal of Correctional Education, 51(4), 324-332. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/07417130022086946.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube