Fyfe, Emily R. (2016). Computers in Human Behavior v63 p568-574 Oct 2016. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566265
Reviewed: March 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (learning problems) from experiment 1 |
ASSISTments with automated feedback vs. ASSISTments |
0 Days |
Experiment 1 full sample (correct-answer feedback vs. no feedback);
|
83.70 |
75.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (transfer problems) from experiment 2 |
ASSISTments with automated feedback vs. ASSISTments |
0 Days |
Experiment 2 full sample (any feedback vs. no feedback);
|
64.83 |
59.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (transfer problems) from experiment 1 |
ASSISTments with automated feedback vs. ASSISTments |
0 Days |
Experiment 1 full sample (correct-answer feedback vs. no feedback);
|
55.81 |
51.72 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (transfer problems) from experiment 2 |
ASSISTments with automated feedback vs. ASSISTments with explanation feedback |
0 Days |
Experiment 2 subsample (try-again feedback vs. explanation feedback);
|
56.82 |
64.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (transfer problems) from experiment 2 |
ASSISTments with automated feedback vs. ASSISTments with correct-answer feedback |
0 Days |
Experiment 2 subsample (explanation and try-again feedback vs. correct-answer feedback);
|
60.81 |
71.59 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in middle school classrooms in the United States. The teachers were using the ASSISTments software as part of their regular classroom instruction. No other information about the study setting was reported.
A total of 246 students in grades 5, 6, and 7 were included in the study. The 246 middle school students were taught by six teachers. The number of schools included in the study was not reported. The study consisted of two experiments. In the first experiment, 103 middle school students were taught by one grade 5 teacher and one grade 6 teacher. Students were randomly assigned either to a no-feedback comparison group (58 students) or to a correct-answer feedback intervention group (45 students). In the second experiment, 143 middle schools students were taught by two grade 6 teachers and two grade 7 teachers. Students were randomly assigned to a no-feedback comparison group (25 students) or to one of three intervention groups: correct-answer feedback (44 students), explanation feedback (41 students), or try-again feedback (33 students). The study did not report any sample characteristics for the first experiment. In the second experiment, approximately 47% of students were female. The study did not report information about free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, English learner status, disabilities, race, or ethnicity for the second experiment.
The intervention is the practice of providing individual students feedback using the ASSISTments software. In each experiment, students took a pretest, completed one algebra homework assignment within three days of the pretest, and then took a posttest on the same day that they completed the homework assignment, all using ASSISTments. The homework assignment included two worked examples followed by problems that students had to solve on their own. Students received immediate, computer-generated feedback for each homework problem completed. In the first experiment, students in the intervention group received correct-answer feedback. If the student solved the problem correctly, the ASSISTments software displayed a green checkmark with the word “Correct!” If the student solved the problem incorrectly, the software displayed a red “X” and provided the right answer. The second experiment had three intervention groups, defined by the type of feedback received: correct-answer, explanation, or try-again. Students in the correct-answer group received the same feedback as in the first experiment. The explanation and try-again feedback groups also received a green checkmark with the word “Correct!” after a correct answer but the feedback for an incorrect answer differed. After a wrong answer, the ASSISTments software provided students in the explanation feedback group with the correct answer, an explanation for why the answer was correct, and a worked example that showed how to solve the problem. In the try-again feedback group, the ASSISTments software relayed a message after an incorrect answer that stated, “Sorry, try again. [Student’s answer] is not correct.” Students in this try-again group could then submit other responses until they obtained the correct answer, or they could click a button to obtain the correct answer.
In both experiments, students in the no-feedback comparison group completed their algebra homework assignment using the ASSISTments software but were not informed whether their answers were correct or incorrect. After students submitted an answer, the software provided an “answer recorded” message and students clicked a button to progress to the next question.
The study did not describe any support for implementation.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube