Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale
Pane, John F.; Griffin, Beth Ann; McCaffrey, Daniel F.; Karam, Rita (2014). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v36 n2 p127-144. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024233
-
examining5,738Students, grades8-12
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Cognitive Tutor Algebra I.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Algebra Proficiency Exam |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grades 8–12;
|
0.08 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Algebra Proficiency Exam |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grades 8–12;
|
-0.02 |
0.03 |
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.
-
10% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas
-
Race Black 36% White 46%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 51 school districts across seven states, including urban districts in Alabama, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Texas; suburban districts in Michigan; and rural districts in Kentucky and Louisiana.
Study sample
On average, White non-Hispanic students comprised 41 - 52% of the sample in each condition, while Black students, the next largest group, comprised 30-41%. Free- or reduced-price lunch status was 38 - 69% of the sample in each condition. Finally, English Language Learner (ELL) status was around 10% in each sample condition.
Intervention Group
Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I was implemented for 2 consecutive school years. The curriculum involved teacher-directed classroom instruction 3 days a week and computer-guided instruction 2 days a week. The software was available for students to use during class and other times during the day. It was self-paced, and students’ progress was based on mastery of the material. During the classroom lessons, students were exposed to topics such as solving linear equations, mathematical modeling with linear and quadratic expressions, problem solving using proportion reasoning, and analyzing data and making predictions. To apply these concepts, students completed worksheets and other activities and engaged in a variety of problem solving strategies. An implementation study indicated that teachers generally implemented all components of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I, but sometimes emphasized the components differently from the publisher recommendations.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received each school’s existing Algebra I curriculum, which included curricula published by Glencoe, McDougal Littell, and Prentice Hall.
Support for implementation
Teachers received 4 days of training throughout the study. During a 3-day session prior to the school year, teachers were introduced to the curriculum, software, and tools, and provided instruction on connections between the curriculum and software and how to use the data to inform instruction. Teachers received a fourth day of training during the school year, at which time professional development staff observed classrooms, offered recommendations, and helped with any problems the teachers had. In addition, teachers received training materials, an implementation guide, and a book of resources and assessments.
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.
-
Pane, John F.; Griffin, Beth Ann; McCaffrey, Daniel F.; Karam, Rita. (2014). Addendum to Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale. Working Paper WR-1050-DEIES. RAND Corporation.
-
Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., Karam, R., Daugherty, L., & Phillips, A. (2013). Does an algebra course with tutoring software improve student learning? (high school experiment). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
-
Sales, A. C., & Pane, J. F. (2015, June). Exploring causal mechanisms in a randomized effectiveness trial of the Cognitive Tutor (high school experiment). Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Madrid, Spain.
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).