Evaluation of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program (Unpublished manuscript).
Shneyderman, A. (2001). Miami, FL: Miami–Dade County Public Schools, Office of Evaluation and Research.
-
examining658Students, grades9-10
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I Intervention Report - Secondary Mathematics
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test–Norm Referenced Test 2001 (FCAT-NRT) |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grades 9 and 10;
|
683.88 |
682.47 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test–Norm Referenced Test 2001 (FCAT-NRT) |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
;
|
688.50 |
693.60 |
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.
-
Female: 47% -
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
-
Race Black 28% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 59%
Study Details
Setting
During the 2000–01 school year, nine senior high schools within the Miami–Dade County Public School District implemented Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I. Of those nine schools, six were selected to participate in the study because they had computer labs as of October 2000 (to support implementation of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I) and because not all algebra classes were using Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I.
Study sample
Among the baseline student sample, 54% were eligible for free and reduced-price meals, and the race/ethnicity was comparable across intervention and comparison groups (56% Hispanic, 30% African American, and 13% White among intervention students; 62% Hispanic, 27% African American, and 10% White among comparison students). In addition, gender was comparable across groups (46% and 48% female for intervention and comparison, respectively). Most of the students were in grades 9 and 10: 79% and 18%, respectively, for the intervention group, and 88% and 11%, respectively, for the comparison group. Each group contained a small number of students in grades 11 and 12, but they were excluded from the analyses due to a lack of baseline test scores.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group were taught using Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I for a full school year. Students worked with the curriculum in a computer lab 2 days per week, and they worked in the classroom on small-group activities 3 days per week. One study school had a functioning computer lab at the beginning of the school year, but the other four schools did not have operational computer labs until October, which according to the study author, could have affected the implementation of the software component of the intervention within these schools.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received Algebra I instruction using a curriculum other than Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I; the comparison curriculum was not named by the author.
Support for implementation
No information was provided about the training or support offered to implement the intervention.
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).