The Benefits of Computer-Generated Feedback for Mathematics Problem Solving [Computer-Generated Immediate Feedback]
Fyfe, Emily R.; Rittle-Johnson, Bethany (2016). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology v147 p140-151. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566264
-
examining48Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Computer-generated immediate feedback - Fyfe et al., (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed math equivalence test |
Computer-generated immediate feedback - Fyfe et al., (2016) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Immediate feedback vs. no feedback;
|
86.00 |
65.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed math equivalence test: transfer subscale |
Computer-generated immediate feedback - Fyfe et al., (2016) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Immediate feedback vs. no-feedback;
|
83.00 |
58.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed math equivalence test: learning subscale |
Computer-generated immediate feedback - Fyfe et al., (2016) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Immediate feedback vs. no feedback;
|
88.00 |
72.00 |
Yes |
|
||
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
Suburban, 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
Tennessee
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one public and one private elementary school in Tennessee. One school was located in an urban setting and the other was located in a suburban setting. No other information about the characteristics of the two schools was available. Students participated in the study in one-on-one sessions with a member of the study team.
Study sample
A total of 48 students in grade 2 were included in the study. The 48 students were in two schools. The study does not describe demographic characteristics for the analytic sample included in the study. Rather, the authors reported demographics for 73 students in the combined analysis samples for two studies (this study, contrasting the immediate feedback to no feedback comparison condition, and a separate study contrasting a summative feedback intervention to the no feedback comparison condition). Of these 73 students, 55 percent were female and 45 percent were male.
Intervention Group
The computer-generated immediate feedback intervention is an individual-level practice in which a student completes a computer-based assessment consisting of 12 math problems. After the student completes each problem, the computer immediately displays the correct answer along with the student’s response. There was no indication that the student's response was correct or incorrect, other than what the student could infer by comparing the correct answer to her own response. The student could then click to advance to the next problem.
Comparison Group
In the no feedback comparison condition, students completed the 12 math problems without receiving feedback. Students did not see the correct answer or any indication that their answer was correct or incorrect either after completing each problem or after completing all 12 problems.
Support for implementation
No additional supports for implementation were described in the study.
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.
-
McNeil, Nicole M.; Fyfe, Emily R.; Petersen, Lori A.; Dunwiddie, April E.; Brletic-Shipley, Heather. (2011). Benefits of Practicing 4 = 2 + 2: Nontraditional Problem Formats Facilitate Children's Understanding of Mathematical Equivalence. Child Development, v82 n5 p1620-1633.
-
Fyfe, Emily R. (2016). Providing Feedback on Computer-Based Algebra Homework in Middle-School Classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior v63 p568-574.
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).