Can feedback, correct, and incorrect worked examples improve numerical magnitude estimation precision? [Undergraduate students]
Fitzsimmons, C. J., Morehead, K. T., Thompson, C. A., Buerke, M., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). The Journal of Experimental Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1891009.
-
examining49Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.64 |
26.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.52 |
19.66 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.91 |
21.28 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.90 |
14.01 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.50 |
17.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-4.40 |
8.31 |
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: 89%
Male: 11% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Other or unknown 22% White 78% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place with psychology students at Kent State University.
Study sample
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with undergraduates. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with elementary school students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. All 49 participating students were undergraduates in the psychology department of Kent State University; 89% of the participants were female. The authors did not collect other demographic information. However, all undergraduate students in the same psychology department from which the participants were recruited were an average of 19 years old and 78% White.
Intervention Group
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. The number line ranged from 1 thousand to 1 billion. Participants placed each number on the number line and rated their confidence in their placement. Students completed the number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
Comparison Group
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement.
Support for implementation
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.23 |
19.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.56 |
26.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.15 |
20.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.55 |
25.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.61 |
14.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.02 |
21.28 |
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: 89%
Male: 11% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Other or unknown 22% White 78% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place with psychology students at Kent State University.
Study sample
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with undergraduates. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with feedback. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with elementary school students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. All 48 participating students were undergraduates in the psychology department of Kent State University; 89% of the participants were female. The authors did not collect other demographic information. However, all undergraduate students in the same psychology department from which the participants were recruited were an average of 19 years old and 78% White.
Intervention Group
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. The number line ranged from 1 thousand to 1 billion. Participants placed each number on the number line and rated their confidence in their placement. Students completed the number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
Comparison Group
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct.
Support for implementation
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.63 |
19.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
31.95 |
26.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.55 |
20.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.12 |
25.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.56 |
17.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.71 |
8.31 |
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: 89%
Male: 11% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Ohio
-
Race Other or unknown 22% White 78% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place with psychology students at Kent State University.
Study sample
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with undergraduates. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with elementary school students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. All 50 participating students were undergraduates in the psychology department of Kent State University; 89% of the participants were female. The authors did not collect other demographic information. However, all undergraduate students in the same psychology department from which the participants were recruited were an average of 19 years old and 78% White.
Intervention Group
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. The number line ranged from 1 thousand to 1 billion. Participants placed each number on the number line and rated their confidence in their placement. Students completed the number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
Comparison Group
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement.
Support for implementation
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
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).