The impact of a technology-based mathematics after-school program using ALEKS on student’s knowledge and behaviors.
Craig, S. D., Hu, X., Graesser, A. C., Bargagliotti, A. E., Sterbinsky, A., Cheney, K. R., & Okwumabua, T. (2013). Computers & Education, 68, 495–504.
-
examining253Students, grade6
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) |
Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) vs. I do-We do-You do technique |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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
Tennessee
Study Details
Setting
The setting of the study was four intermediate schools in a single district in West Tennessee. The authors randomized four classrooms in each of the four schools to the intervention or comparison condition, resulting in eight classes in each condition. One teacher was assigned to each class in the study, and a maximum of 20 students could be in those classes. In all, 253 students participated across 16 classes.
Study sample
The analysis controls for both gender and ethnicity, but the article does not provide detailed enough information to describe the sample. The variable (gender) has a mean value of 1.56, but does not indicate which gender is represented by which value. Likewise, the variable (ethnicity) has a mean value of 1.85, but there is no indication how this variable was coded. The school system from which the study sample was a part of, was 68% economically disadvantaged, 56% African American, 3% Hispanic, and 39% white. There is no indication of what percentage of the students had learning disabilities.
Intervention Group
Students in the ALEKS intervention condition were supported to use the web-based, adaptive software, based on their instructional needs and self-pacing through instructional modules for 25 weeks. During each tutoring session, students interacted with the ALEKS system and teachers supervised, provided technical assistance, and mathematics assistance as needed. Program participation involved two hours, 2x per week after school. In the two hour sessions, intervention students worked in the ALEKS system during three, 20 minute tutoring sessions, for a total of 1 hour of per session in the ALEKS system, or a total of 2 hours per week. Each two-hour session had two 20 minute breaks, with 10 minutes at the beginning and the end for set-up and dismissal. During one break, students received district-approved snacks and during the second break, students could play games.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in the teacher-led instructional content using the I do-We do-You do technique for 25 weeks. In this condition, participation also involved two hours, 2x per week after school. In the two hour sessions, comparison students had one hour of instructional time, broken into three 20 minute segments. The teacher modeled math problems in the first 20 minute session. In the second 20-minute session, the students worked on similar math problems as a group. In the third 20-minute session, students worked on math problems independently. Each two-hour session in the comparison condition had two 20 minute breaks, with 10 minutes at the beginning and the end for set-up and dismissal.
Support for implementation
Participating teachers received a three-hour training on the procedures for both conditions (p. 12). Each of the four schools had an onsite facilitator, who was appointed by the school principal to provide oversight to the program. The onsite facilitators enforced schedules, placed students into the correct classrooms, and managed the delivery of snack breaks. The onsite facilitators also provided assistance to teachers for disciplinary issues that arose, and handled distribution of materials for the study. Onsite facilitators were paid $25 per hour for after school hours. Teachers collected information on students' attendance in each condition. At ten random dates, all students who participated received a small gift from the Oriental Trading Company. Students with high attendance were entered in a drawing for more substantial prizes (e.g. laptop) at the end of the program. Teachers were paid $20 per hour for their instructional time.
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).