References
Meets WWC evidence standards
Cabalo, J. V., Jaciw, A., & Vu, M.-T. (2007). Comparative effectiveness of Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor Algebra I curriculum: A report of a randomized experiment in the Maui School District. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education, Inc.
Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Additional source:
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., & Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Shneyderman, A. (2001). Evaluation of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program. Unpublished manuscript. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Office of Evaluation and Research.
Smith, J. E. (2001). The effect of the Carnegie Algebra Tutor on student achievement and attitude in introductory high school algebra. Unpublished dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Studies that fall outside the High School Mathem review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(2), 101–128. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.
Arbuckle, W. J. (2005). Conceptual understanding in a computer-assisted Algebra 1 classroom. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it does not provide adequate information to determine whether it uses an outcome that is valid or reliable.
Baker, R., Corbett, A., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Developing a generalizable detector of when students game the system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(3), 287–314. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Blessing, S. B., Gilbert, S. G., Oureda, S., & Ritter, S. (2009). Authoring model-tracing cognitive tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 189–210. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Corbett, A. T. (2001). Cognitive Tutor results report: 7th grade. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Corbett, A. T. (2002). Cognitive Tutor results report: 8th & 9th grade. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239–264. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366–397. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.
Mac Iver, M. A., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2009). Urban middle-grade student mathematics achievement growth under comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 223–236. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Plano, G. S., Ramey, M., & Achilles, C. M. (2005). Implications for student learning using a technology-based algebra program in a ninth-grade algebra course. Unpublished manuscript. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Additional source:
Plano, G. S. (2004). The effects of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra on student attitudes and achievement in a 9th-grade algebra course. (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International 65(04A), 47–291. (AAI3130130).
Ritter, S. (2005). Authoring model-tracing tutors. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(3), 231–247. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 249–255. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Ritter, S., Haverty, L., Koedinger, K., Hadley, W., & Corbett, A. (2008). Integrating intelligent software tutors with the math classroom. In G. Blume & K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Ritter, S., Kulikowich, J., Lei, P., McGuire, C., & Morgan, P. (2007). What evidence matters? A randomized field trial of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I. In T. Hirashima, H. U. Hoppe, & S. Shwu-Ching Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (pp. 13–20). Netherlands: IOS Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Additional source:
Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effect of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Retrieved from http://www.carnegielearning.com/web_docs/morgan_ritter_2002.pdf.
Salden, R., Aleven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 203–213. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Sarkis, H. (2004). Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program evaluation: Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Lighthouse Point, FL: The Reliability Group. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Stylianou, D. A., & Shapiro, L. (2002). Revitalizing algebra: The effect of the use of a cognitive tutor in a remedial course. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3), 147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Vinogradova, E., King, C., & Rhoades, T. (2008). Success for all students: What works? Best practices in Maryland public schools. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/1/0/5/p241050_index.html. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.
Wolfson, M., Koedinger, K., Ritter, S., & McGuire, C. (2008). Cognitive Tutor Algebra I: Evaluation of results (1993–1994). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Additional source:
Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8(1), 30–43.