Technology-Based Support Shows Promising Long-Term Impact on Math Learning: Initial Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Middle Schools
Feng, Mingyu; Huang, Chunwei; Collins, Kelly (2023). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED630781
-
examining2,178Students, grades7-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for ASSISTments)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade 8 Mathematics Readiness Test |
ASSISTments vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Grade 8 North Carolina End-of-Grade Math Test |
ASSISTments vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
535.13 |
534.33 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 21% Two or more races 22% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 86% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 51% No FRPL 50%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 102 grade 7 mathematics classrooms in 63 schools across 41 school districts in North Carolina. The schools were located in rural, town, suburban, and urban settings. The sample included public and charter schools; 48 schools were Title I.
Study sample
Students were included in the analytic sample if they were enrolled in one of the participating schools as a Grade 6 student during the 2018–19 school year (or as a Grade 7 student in 2019–20 if the school did not serve Grade 6), had a valid Grade 6 End-of-Grade math score, and later had an eligible Grade 8 End-of-Grade math score. Students who enrolled in high-school–level mathematics courses in Grade 8 and therefore did not take the Grade 8 End-of-Grade math test were excluded from the primary analytic sample. Random assignment occurred at the school level. Of the 63 schools, 32 schools were assigned to the ASSISTments intervention condition and 31 schools were assigned to the comparison condition. The analytic sample for the Grade 8 Mathematics Readiness Test included 2,178 students, with 1,438 students in intervention schools and 740 students in comparison schools. The analytic sample for the Grade 8 End-of-Grade math test included 5,991 students, with 2,961 students in intervention schools and 3,030 students in comparison schools. The authors did not report the demographic characteristics of the students in the study. The schools in the sample served a demographically diverse student population and included 48 Title I schools. Although the authors did not report detailed demographic characteristics specifically for the analytic student sample, school-level demographic information indicates that participating schools enrolled substantial proportions of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and racially and ethnically diverse populations.
Intervention Group
ASSISTments is a technology platform to support teachers and students to manage math homework assignments. During the study year, teachers used it to assign homework to grade 7 students and view reports on student performance, which they can use to tailor instruction. As students complete their assignments, the platform provides them with immediate feedback and support. Teachers used ASSISTments to assign math homework twice weekly. Students spent about 20-30 minutes to complete each homework assignment. As part of the ASSISTment intervention teachers were asked to review student performance reports for at least half of assignments.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition provided business-as-usual math instruction and assigned students homework without using ASSISTments.
Support for implementation
Teachers in intervention schools participated in a 2-day professional development session before the start of the school year. In this professional development session teachers received training on how to use the ASSISTments platform, interpret student performance reports, and integrate ASSISTments into their classrooms to support students. In addition to this professional development, teachers received ongoing support from coaches throughout the school year. Each teacher received three in-person classroom visits from a coach.
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.
-
Feng, Mingyu; Heffernan, Neil; Collins, Kelly; Heffernan, Cristina; Murphy, Robert F. (2023). Implementing and Evaluating ASSISTments Online Math Homework Support at Large Scale over Two Years: Findings and Lessons Learned. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (24th, Tokyo, Japan,.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2025
- Grant Competition (findings for ASSISTments)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
ASSISTments vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
535.13 |
534.33 |
Yes |
|
|
Grade 8 Mathematics Readiness Test |
ASSISTments vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 21% Other or unknown 22% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 86% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in North Carolina in 102 math classrooms from 63 schools in 41 districts. Forty-eight of the schools were Title I schools, both public and charter. Schools were located in rural, town, suburban, and urban settings.
Study sample
Schools were randomized to study condition, with students the unit of analysis. The study included 5,991 students in total (2,961 intervention students and 3,030 comparison students). Of the student sample, 58% were White and 20% were Black. About 14% reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Forty-seven percent of schools were classified as rural.
Intervention Group
ASSISTments, used by intervention teachers for two consecutive school years (2018/19 and 2019/20), provides immediate feedback to students on math homework problems and generates performance reports for teachers. It incorporates mastery learning and uses homework to enhance learning. Teachers assigned ASSISTments math homework twice weekly, taking students about 20-23 minutes to complete, and were expected to review reports for at least 50% of assignments. In 2018/19, teachers learned and practiced with ASSISTments, continuing its use with a new cohort of 7th graders in 2019/20, whose math outcomes were measured in spring 2020.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group continued to use their existing practices and math curriculum materials. They did not have access to ASSISTments, professional development, or coaching until the summer of 2020.
Support for implementation
The ASSISTments development team provided intervention teachers 2 days of professional development in the summer of 2018 and 2019. Teachers also received additional coaching and technical assistance during the school year via webinars, video conferencing, and two to three in-person visits each school year from a trained math coach.
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.
-
Feng, Mingyu; Heffernan, Neil; Collins, Kelly; Heffernan, Cristina; Murphy, Robert F. (2023). Implementing and Evaluating ASSISTments Online Math Homework Support at Large Scale over Two Years: Findings and Lessons Learned. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (24th, Tokyo, Japan,.
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).