Using Worked Examples as an Instructional Support in the Algebra Classroom.
Carroll, William M. (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, v86 n3 p360-67 Sep 1994. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ497089
-
examining24Students, grades9-12
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Worked examples as instructional supports–Carroll (1994))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Post-test 1 |
Worked examples as instructional supports–Carroll (1994) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.08 |
6.42 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a high school located in a large Midwestern U.S. district. The author reports that the school has a drop out rate near 50 percent and students score well below national norms on standardized tests.
Study sample
Half of the participants were female, half were male, ages 14 to 16. All were classified as low achievers and placed in their class because of extremely low mathematics scores on standardized tests.
Intervention Group
The intervention was conducted within a 40-minute class period. The teacher instructed students on how to translate equations and students practiced three problems with worked examples. Then the students received up to three worksheets with six solved and six unsolved problems. Students had 10 minutes to complete these worksheets. Students were instructed to use the example problems to help solve the unsolved problems. The intervention materials and instruments deal with a narrow skill—translating words into equations—also the primary focus of the post-test assessments.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were in the same classroom(s) as students in the intervention condition, and so received the same instruction. However, these students did not receive example problems during the practice periods (the 24-item worksheet and homework in experiment 1, and the three 12-item worksheets in experiment 2). Instead, comparison students received the same problems, but with none of the items worked.
Support for implementation
No special training was provided to the instructor(s) in the study.
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).