Pane, John F.; McCaffrey, Daniel F.; Slaughter, Mary Ellen; Steele, Jennifer L.; Ikemoto, Gina S. (2010). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v3 n3 p254-281. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ888770
Reviewed: July 2016
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 Cognitive Tutor® Geometry.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Baltimore County Public School District (BCPS) Geometry Assessment |
Cognitive Tutor® Geometry vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
High school students;
|
17.01 |
18.79 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in eight high schools in the Baltimore County Public School District. Two of the study schools participated in each of 3 academic years (2005–06 to 2007–08), three participated for 2 years, and three participated for 1 year.
Among the analytic student sample, 76% were minorities, and 36% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Students in the intervention classrooms were taught using Cognitive Tutor® Geometry for an entire academic school year. The curriculum included teacher-directed classroom instruction (60% of classroom time) and computer-guided individual instruction (40% of classroom time). Both components focused on inductive problem solving. During classroom instruction, the teacher led students through math problems and assisted them as they worked in groups to solve additional problems, after which students presented their groups’ work to the class. During computer-guided instruction, students worked through math problems matched to their current ability. The software has several interactive, feedback-driven features, so it tailors the difficulty of the problem to the student’s demonstrated mastery. The student is able to ask the software for hints when solving problems.
Students in the comparison classrooms were taught using the school’s standard geometry curriculum, which was not specified in the study.
Each study teacher received 3 days of training on Cognitive Tutor® Geometry prior to using the curriculum. In addition, each teacher received 1 day of follow-up training during the school year. The curriculum included a pacing guide designed by the district to ensure that the district’s required geometry content would be covered in the intervention classrooms.
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