Developing Procedural Flexibility: Are Novices Prepared to Learn from Comparing Procedures?
Rittle-Johnson, Bethany; Star, Jon R.; Durkin, Kelley (2012). British Journal of Educational Psychology, v82 n3 p436-455. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ975135
-
examining124Students, grade8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conceptual knowledge subtest of study generated test |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
26.79 |
29.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Conceptual knowledge subtest of study generated test |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
25.18 |
28.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
flexible use of procedures |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
27.17 |
15.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
flexibility knowledge |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
50.87 |
42.63 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
flexible use of procedures |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
23.51 |
9.79 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
flexibility knowledge |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
47.42 |
40.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural knowledge subtest of study generated test |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
38.09 |
34.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Procedural knowledge subtest of study generated test |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample: Immediate Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure ;
|
35.59 |
31.07 |
No |
-- | ||
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two public middle schools in the United States.
Intervention Group
Students worked with partners to study pairs of solved problems that used the same linear equation but provided different solution methods. Problems were presented side by side. The intervention took place in 2 classroom periods of 80–90 minutes over 2 days.
Comparison Group
Students worked with partners to study examples, but the examples were presented illustrating one solution method at a time. The examples were linear equations with one unknown.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2017
- Practice Guide (findings for Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
flexibility knowledge |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample: Delayed Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
41.09 |
42.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
flexible use of procedures |
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample: Delayed Comparison of Procedures vs. Delayed Exposure;
|
9.91 |
15.00 |
No |
-- |
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Study Details
Setting
2 public middle schools in the United States
Intervention Group
Students worked with partners to study pairs of solved problems presented side by side. On day 1, the examples in a pair used the same solution method to solve a different linear equation. On day 2, the examples in a pair solved the same equation using different solution methods. The intervention took place in 2 classroom periods of 80–90 minutes over 2 days.
Comparison Group
Students worked with partners to study solved problems, but the examples were presented illustrating one solution method at a time. The examples were linear equations with one unknown.
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2015
Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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
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% -
Race Asian 2% Black 14% White 77% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93%
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).