Effects of Playing an Educational Math Game That Incorporates Learning by Teaching
Fiorella, Logan; Kuhlmann, Shelbi; Vogel-Walcutt, Jennifer J. (2019). Journal of Educational Computing Research, v57 n6 p1495-1512. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1225288
-
examining58Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Computer based educational game – Fiorella et al., (2019))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed measure of knowledge acquisition |
Computer based educational game – Fiorella et al., (2019) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.20 |
4.70 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
International
-
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 middle school math class at a school located on a U.S. Air Force base in Germany.
Study sample
The study included 58 seventh-grade students with an average age of 12.5 years. The researchers assigned 28 students to the intervention group and 30 students to the comparison group, using student grade point average and gender to create similar groups. The manuscript did not report additional eligibility criteria for participation beyond being students in the class that took part in the study.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group used a computer-based educational math game designed to teach math concepts through a space-themed story. As students moved through the game, they worked on math tasks and responded to prompts meant to guide an animated character through solving problems. The content addressed topics including equations, rational numbers, area and volume, and measures such as mean, median, and mode. Students used the program on their own for about 10 hours across 4 days, during six sessions that lasted about 1.5 to 2.5 hours, in place of their usual math lessons.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received their usual math instruction from their regular teacher instead of playing the game. This instruction included direct teaching followed by guided and independent practice exercises. The comparison activities covered the same underlying math concepts as the game, although the specific practice problems were somewhat different. Students worked individually on the exercises and could ask their teacher for help.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe training or other implementation support for teachers or other staff delivering the intervention or comparison condition. The manuscript stated that the game was commercially developed, but it did not provide details about preparation or support for school staff during 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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).