Improving Student Learning and Engagement through Gamified Instruction: Evaluation of iPersonalize
Klute, Mary; Yanoski, David; Rhoads, Christopher; Norford, Jennifer; Joyce, Jeanette; Serdiouk, Marina (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602069
-
examining1,256Students, grade6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for iPersonalize)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
iPersonalize vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
590.93 |
585.33 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
iPersonalize vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
586.68 |
583.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MY Access! School Edition |
iPersonalize vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.79 |
3.64 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
MY Access! School Edition |
iPersonalize vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
3.75 |
3.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
MY Access! School Edition |
iPersonalize vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
3.85 |
3.75 |
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.
-
24% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
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
California
-
Race Asian 31% Other or unknown 55% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 52% Not Hispanic or Latino 48%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 15 schools from one California school district (Fullerton School District). The intervention was administered during English language arts class.
Study sample
The largest analytic sample in the study included 37 English language arts teachers and 1,256 students in their sixth-grade classrooms. A majority of the students were Hispanic (52 percent), about one-third were Asian or Pacific Islander (31 percent), 14 percent were White, and race or ethnicity was not reported for the remaining 3 percent. Fifty-one percent were female, 24 percent were English learners, 11 percent were eligible for special education services, and 49 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
iPersonalize is an online application that incorporates computer game elements into tailored learning activities designed to meet students’ individual learning goals and improve student’s literacy achievement. Students received instruction using a unit of the iPersonalize program called “Agents of Change,” that centered on projects designed around students’ personal interests and strengths. Students engaged in research, reading, and writing to complete the projects and earned badges for completing learning goals. The iPersonalize online learning management system provided students with tailored activities and assessments. Students also completed traditional classroom activities. The intervention was implemented during the first trimester of one school year. On average, intervention students logged on to the learning management system 106 times, attempted 22 quests, and completed 18 quests.
Comparison Group
The study authors intended for the comparison group students to receive business-as-usual English language arts instruction; however, the comparison group also received most of the features of the iPersonalize intervention with the following two differences: 1) because comparison students did not have access to the iPersonalize online learning management system, they completed assessments and activities on other online platforms and 2) comparison students received tangible rewards rather than online badges.
Support for implementation
The school district provided a training on the iPersonalize system to teachers in June before the start of the study. The study authors did not specify if only intervention teachers attended the training.
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).