Description and evaluation of Reasoning Mind’s 2003 pilot project.
Weber, W. A. (2003). Houston, TX: Reasoning Mind, Inc.
-
examining54Students, grade7
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Reasoning Mind)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Mathematics |
Reasoning Mind vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
30.21 |
25.11 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Black 5% White 4% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 91% Not Hispanic or Latino 9%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a middle school in Houston, Texas. Students interacted with the Reasoning Mind program in a large computer room separate from their math classroom.
Study sample
All participants were seventh grade students. At the school, 91% of students are Hispanic, 5% are black, and 4% are white. Separate sample characteristics were not provided for the study sample.
Intervention Group
Before the intervention began, both the intervention and comparison group received a three-lesson tutorial on fractions. The goal of the three-lesson tutorial was to prepare students for learning about ratios. Additionally, before beginning the intervention, students received a two-day tutorial teaching them how to use the Reasoning Mind system. Students had twenty-nine 90-minute intervention sessions, totaling 2610 minutes (43.5 hours). Students worked with the Reasoning Mind system outside of their math class and were free to log-in to the system from their home computers. The Reasoning Mind Intervention consisted of a computer-based delivery and tutoring system. The curriculum covered information on ratios, rates, and proportions. The program had three components. The first, and primary, component was guided study. In this mode, students read about theory behind math concepts and solved problems. After providing a response, students were able to see the solution. The second component was independent study. In this mode, students were able to select which topic they wanted to review and the difficulty level of the problems they wanted to solve. Students could also communicate directly with tutors via chat. The third component was a Game Room in which students could play multiplayer math games. An interactive agent (the ""genie"") was present throughout the software system and served as both a mentor and mascot for the program. The math content presented in the software was created by a curriculum design team. Students earned points for completing tasks (e.g., answering problems) which they were able to trade in for prizes.
Comparison Group
Before the intervention began, both the intervention and comparison group received a three-lesson tutorial on fractions. Both the intervention and comparison condition students attended math class as usual. It is unclear what students in the comparison condition were doing while students were receiving the intervention.
Support for implementation
Before the study began, the online tutors were given a manual and engaged in role-play-based training. Tutors were either paid between $12 and $15 an hour or worked on a volunteer basis. Study staff were present in the computer room to provide technical assistance, ensure students were following the instructions provided by the software, and distribute prizes and certificates.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Weber, W. A. (2003). An evaluation of the Reasoning Mind pilot program at Hogg Middle School. Houston, TX: Reasoning Mind, Inc.
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).