The Benefit of Interleaved Mathematics Practice Is Not Limited to Superficially Similar Kinds of Problems
Rohrer, Doug; Dedrick, Robert F.; Burgess, Kaleena (2014). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review v21 n5 p1323-1330. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED548041
-
examining140Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- Single Study Review (findings for Interleaved practice)
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage correct – Full researcher-developed test |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
0.72 |
0.38 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percentage correct – Problem type D (determination of slope) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
0.71 |
0.21 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Percentage correct – Problem type C (graphing linear equation) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
0.82 |
0.44 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Percentage correct – Problem type A (solving linear equation problems) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
0.56 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percentage correct – Problem type B (word problem with proportion) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
0.78 |
0.61 |
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
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
Florida
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in eight regular education seventh-grade math classes at a public middle school in Tampa, Florida.
Study sample
The study sample included eight classes of seventh-grade students taught by three teachers. The researchers randomly assigned four of the classes, stratified within teacher, to one of two groups. Classrooms in both groups received the interleaved practice intervention, with the first group receiving interleaved instruction on practice problem types A and B, and the second group receiving interleaved instruction on practice problem types C and D; therefore, all of the students in the sample contributed data as members of both the intervention and comparison groups. In response to an author query, the authors indicated that the baseline sample size for the group assigned to interleaved practice for problem types A and B was 77 students, and the baseline sample size for students assigned to interleaved practice for problem types C and D was 79 students. The analytic sample size was 140 students (70 students represented in both the intervention and comparison groups).
Intervention Group
All students received the interleaved practice intervention, but on different problem types. The first interleaved practice group received the intervention on problem types A and B, which included solving a linear equation requiring four steps (problem type A), and solving a word problem using a proportion (problem type B). The second interleaved practice group received the intervention on problem types C and D, which included graphing an equation of the form y = mx + b (problem type C), and determining the slope of a line defined by two given points (problem type D). During a 9-week practice phase, students received ten assignments with 12 problems each. Across the assignments, the students were presented with 48 problems—12 for each of the four problem types. An additional 72 problems were based on entirely different types of problems.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group for a given problem type received blocked practice. Classrooms assigned to interleaved practice for problem types A and B served as the comparison group (blocked practice group) for problem types C and D. Similarly, classrooms assigned to interleaved practice for problem types C and D served as the comparison group (blocked practice group) for problem types A and B. Students in both groups received the same practice problems, but the researchers arranged the problems to create two versions of each assignment based on whether it would be used in the interleaved practice group for problem types A and B or problem types C and D.
Support for implementation
Before each assignment, teachers received copies of the assignment for their students and a slide presentation with solved examples and solutions to each problem. Teachers were asked to present the examples before distributing the assignment.
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2015
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Interleaved mathematics practice)
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion correct, Problem type D |
Interleaved mathematics practice vs. Other intervention |
posttest |
Whole class;
|
0.71 |
0.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Proportion correct, Problem type C |
Interleaved mathematics practice vs. Other intervention |
posttest |
Whole class;
|
0.82 |
0.44 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Proportion correct, Problem type A |
Interleaved mathematics practice vs. Other intervention |
posttest |
Whole class;
|
0.56 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Proportion correct, Problem type B |
Interleaved mathematics practice vs. Other intervention |
posttest |
Whole class;
|
0.78 |
0.61 |
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
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
Florida
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).