The Impacts of Three Educational Technologies on Algebraic Understanding in the Context of COVID-19 [DragonBox 12+ vs. Business-as-usual]
Decker-Woodrow, Lauren E.; Mason, Craig A.; Lee, Ji-Eun; Chan, Jenny Yun-Chen; Sales, Adam; Liu, Allison; Tu, Shihfen (2023). AERA Open v9 n1 p1-17 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED627889
-
examining716Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for DragonBox 12+)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Algebraic Knowledge Assessment (posttest) |
DragonBox 12+ vs. Active Control Problem Sets with Post-Assignment Feedback |
2 Weeks |
Full sample - Full sample for DragonBox;
|
4.81 |
4.29 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
South
-
Race Asian 25% Black 4% Native American 1% Other or unknown 18% Pacific Islander 0% White 51% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in grade 7 classrooms from one large district in the southeastern United States and included 9 suburban middle schools and 34 teachers. For students in the 8 schools providing in-person instruction, the study occurred during math classrooms. For students in the one school providing virtual instruction, the study assignments were given as part of the student’s home learning assignments.
Study sample
A total of 1,439 students were randomized evenly to either intervention (DragonBox 12+) or comparison condition, with 720 in the intervention condition and 719 in the comparison condition. The analytic sample included 350 and 366 intervention and comparison students, respectively. The study included 48 grade 7 math teachers in 10 schools. Approximately 50% of the students were female, 51% White, 25% Asian, 4% Black, 1% American Indian, less than 1% Pacific Islander, and 18% of students had other or unknown race. The sample included 15% Hispanic students. The sample also included 9% students with individualized education programs.
Intervention Group
DragonBox 12+ is an educational technology game aimed at introducing advanced algebraic concepts to students aged 12 to 17. Through this education program, students are tasked with isolating a box containing a dragon, which is equivalent to solving equations for the variable 'x.' The program also includes the use of discovery-based learning, integration of embedded gestures, utilization of multiple representations, provision of immediate feedback, and the implementation of adaptive difficulty. DragonBox 12+ is designed so that students do not perceive it as a traditional math game. In the initial stages of the game, numbers and variables are intentionally absent. Instead, students manipulate cards adorned with images of monsters, all while adhering to the principles of algebra. As the game progresses, the monster cards are gradually replaced by algebraic symbols. Intervention students were provided with a total of nine sessions throughout the academic year, each lasting for 30 minutes. They were given a two-week timeframe to complete each session. These sessions were divided into four in the fall semester and five in the spring semester. Both before and after the intervention, students underwent assessments that lasted between 40 to 45 minutes, covering topics such as algebraic knowledge, mathematics anxiety, and self-efficacy. All interventions and assessments were conducted online, with students working independently at their own pace using electronic devices. For students receiving in-person instruction, teachers allocated dedicated instructional periods within mathematics classrooms for the study assignments. Students who were receiving virtual instruction had the study assignments integrated into their online learning activities. The mathematical content included arithmetic and algebraic equation solving. A countdown timer was integrated into the system to ensure that students spent a similar amount of time using the technology. Students had the flexibility to pause and resume the timer, allowing for breaks and resumption at their convenience.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received the same mathematical content as the intervention group, including arithmetic and algebraic equation solving. Comparison students also completed assignments using the same types of technology offered to the intervention condition students. Students in the comparison condition received feedback after their assignments, rather than immediately during the exercise.
Support for implementation
The authors did not outline 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).