Improving Mathematics Learning of Kindergarten Students through Computer-Assisted Instruction
Foster, Matthew E.; Anthony, Jason L.; Clements, Doug H.; Sarama, Julie; Williams, Jeffrey M. (2016). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education v47 n3 p206-232. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580968
-
examining212Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for Building Blocks software suite )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabularly Test (EOWPVT) |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
54.31 |
54.58 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Research-based Early Maths Assessment - Number Strand |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
20.99 |
19.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement - Applied problems sub-test |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
18.80 |
18.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Research-based Early Maths Assessment - Composition of Number subtest |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.37 |
1.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Research-based Early Maths Assessment - Number recognition and subitizing sub-test |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
3.47 |
3.24 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Research-based Early Maths Assessment - Number comparison and sequencing subtest |
Building Blocks software suite vs. Earobics® |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
13.71 |
13.89 |
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: 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
Texas
-
Race Black 63% Other or unknown 35% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in nine schools in a large urban school district in Texas over three school years. Schools were chosen for the study because they mostly served low-income children.
Study sample
A total of 212 students in 37 full-day kindergarten classrooms were included in the study. All of the students were monolingual English speakers, 49 percent were male, and on average 92 percent of students in the 9 schools were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch. Sixty-three percent of students were Black, 2 percent were White, and 35 percent were mixed race or did not report a race. Thirty percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition is Building Blocks, which is a game-based, supplemental math software program that uses personalized lessons and research-based learning paths to improve student math skills and confidence through games and adaptive learning technology. Students worked individually on Building Blocks over 21 weeks for 90 minutes a week, either through three 30-minute sessions or two 45-minute sessions depending on the school’s schedule. The intervention was in addition to the standard instruction students received in their classrooms.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition is Earobics, which is a game-based literacy instruction software program that focuses on phonological awareness. Similar to the Building Blocks intervention, students worked individually on Earobics over 21 weeks for 90 minutes a week, either through three 30-minute sessions or two 45-minute sessions depending on the school’s schedule.
Support for implementation
Three research assistants set up the Building Blocks or Earobics software programs in schools’ computer labs and checked to ensure the programs functioned properly at the start of each day. They provided supervision to students to help them solve technological issues, and to ensure they were on task and worked independently.
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).