References

Met WWC evidence standards with reservations

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.

Additional source:
Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor ^® Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.carnegielearning.com/research/
research_reports/morgan_ritter_2002.pdf.

Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

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 include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Arbuckle, W. J. (2005). Conceptual understanding in a computer-assisted Algebra 1 classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.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.

Cabalo, J. V., & 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. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., and Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts (NCEE 2009-4041). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

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. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

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.

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. Available from the Mercer Island School District, 4160 86th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Plano, G. S. (2004). The effects of the Cognitive Tutor ^® Algebra on student attitudes and achievement in a 9th grade algebra course. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(04), 1291A. (UMI No. 3130130)

Rigeman, S., & McIntire, N. (2005). Enhancing curriculum and instruction through technology. T.H.E. Journal, 32(12), 31–34. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Ritter, S., Anderson, J., Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor ^®: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313–349. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Sarkis, H. (2004). Cognitive Tutor^® Algebra 1: Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Lighthouse Point, FL: The Reliability Group. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Shneyderman, A. (2001). Evaluation of the Cognitive Tutor^® Algebra 1 program. Unpublished manuscript. Available from the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Evaluation and Research, 1500 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33132. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

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 is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

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.