Barrow, Lisa; Markman, Lisa; Rouse, Cecilia Elena (2007). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505645
Reviewed: August 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn® Algebra.
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.
Barrow, Lisa; Markman, Lisa; Rouse, Cecilia Elena. (2007). Technology's Edge: The Educational Benefits of Computer-Aided Instruction. WP 2007-17. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Barrow, L., Markman, L., & Rouse, C. E. (2008). Technology’s edge: The educational benefits of computer-aided instruction (NBER Working Paper 14240). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Reviewed: August 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn®.
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.
Barrow, Lisa; Markman, Lisa; Rouse, Cecilia Elena. (2007). Technology's Edge: The Educational Benefits of Computer-Aided Instruction. WP 2007-17. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Barrow, L., Markman, L., & Rouse, C. E. (2008). Technology’s edge: The educational benefits of computer-aided instruction (NBER Working Paper 14240). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Reviewed: February 2012
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State Achievement test |
I CAN Learn® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
District 2;
|
6.43 |
6.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
State Achievement test |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
District 3;
|
17.60 |
17.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 64% |
| Hispanic | 29% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 71% |
The study took place in three large urban school districts (called Districts 1, 2, and 3 in the study report) located in different parts of the United States, with one in the Northeast, one in the Midwest, and one in the South. However, analyses of one of these districts (District 1) was excluded from this review because the outcome measure was based only on students in grade 8 and therefore did not fall within the scope of the High School Math review protocol. Both districts that were included in this review were studied in the 2003–04 school year.
The study was based on a within-school random assignment design. To be eligible for the study, each school had to have a computer lab and be willing to accommodate the randomized design. Schools were given the option of excluding particular teachers and/or classrooms from the study before randomization. The participating schools provided the authors with the schedule of pre-algebra and algebra classes near the beginning of the academic year. The authors then randomly selected the treatment classes (taught using I CAN Learn®) and control group classes (taught using the method of instruction typically used in the district). At baseline, the study sample included 1,062 students (in 46 classes) in District 2 and 609 students (in 24 classes) in District 3. State achievement test scores were available for only 341 students (in 46 classes) in District 2 and 199 students (in 21 classes) in District 3. Because of the high attrition in the state achievement test analysis, the study was treated as a quasiexperimental design that demonstrated baseline equivalence of the analysis sample on a pretest and made the necessary statistical adjustments, allowing it to meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. A large number of students in the study were members of racial or ethnic minorities. In District 2, 47% of study students were African American and 45% were Hispanic. In District 3, 94% of study students were African American.
Students in classes assigned to the treatment condition were provided pre-algebra and algebra instruction through I CAN Learn®. Thus, these students received self-paced, masterybased instruction through interactive, multimedia software.
Comparison group students received pre-algebra and algebra instruction with the curricula typically used in the district. The study does not provide further details about these curricula.
The outcome measures were statewide math achievement tests administered in the study districts’ respective states. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The study does not include information on teacher training.
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.
Barrow, L., Markman, L., & Rouse, C. E. (2008). Technology’s edge: The educational benefits of computer-aided instruction (NBER Working Paper 14240). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Reviewed: February 2010
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State math assessment |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
District 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Customized algebra test score |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
State math assessment |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
District 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
State math assessment |
I CAN Learn® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
District 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 82% |
| Hispanic | 14% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 86% |
Reviewed: March 2009
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra.
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