What evidence matters? A randomized field trial of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I
Ritter, S., Kulikowich, J., Lei, P., McGuire, C., & Morgan, P. (2007). In T. Hirashima, H. U. Hoppe, & S. Shwu-Ching Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (pp. 13–20). Netherlands: IOS Press. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/.
-
examining255Students, grade9
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Cognitive Tutor Algebra I)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Cognitive Tutor Algebra I Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Educational Testing Service (ETS) End-of-Course Algebra Test |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
17.41 |
15.28 |
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.
-
- 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
Oklahoma
-
Race Asian 5% Black 5% Native American 18% White 65% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4%
Study Details
Setting
Study was conducted on 9th graders (14-15 year olds) in Moore Independent School District, near Oklahoma City, OK.
Study sample
The study included 9th graders (14-15 year olds). No other sample characteristics were provided for this sample of students. The district is described as 65 percent White, 18 percent Native American, 5 percent Black, 5 percent Asian, and 4 percent Hispanic.
Intervention Group
Cognitive Tutor classes involve three components: text, intelligent tutoring software, and teacher training. Students spend 2 class periods per week in the computer lab using software, which tracks the progress of student understanding. (The study was conducted in the first year of Cognitive Tutor implementation.)
Comparison Group
McDougal-Littell Heath Algebra I was used by the comparison classrooms. The authors refer to the comparison curriculum as a traditional textbook.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended 4 days of initial training (before teaching with Cognitive Tutor) to familiarize themselves with the software, learn the pedagogical approaches used during classroom instruction, and learn techniques for integrating the software and classroom instruction.
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.
-
Carnegie Learning, Inc. (2004). Carnegie Learning research report: Moore Independent School District. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
-
Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.carnegielearning.com
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).