Teaching How to Teach Promotes Learning by Teaching
Matsuda, Noboru; Lv, Dan; Zheng, Guoguo (2023). International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, v33 n3 p720-751 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1388593
-
examining169Students, grades7-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for APLUS Cognitive + APLUS Metacognitive)
- 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 Conceptual Knowledge Test |
APLUS Cognitive + APLUS Metacognitive vs. APLUS Cognitive |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.48 |
0.46 |
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
-
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 across 22 algebra classes in three middle schools in rural cities. The cities and states in which the study was conducted were not specified.
Study sample
Within the contrast presented in this review, 169 students in grades 7 and 8 from 22 algebra classes were included in the study. Students who completed both the pretest and posttest and participated in all four days of the intervention were included in the analytic sample. Information on the demographic characteristics of the sample (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) was not reported in the manuscript.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition worked with a form of the Artificial Peer Learning environment Using SimStudent (APLUS), an app designed to help students learn to solve algebra equations through teaching an artificial peer (SimStudent). The intervention condition is a hybrid form of APLUS that incorporates both metacognitive and cognitive scaffolding to provide students with assistance on how to teach SimStudent and how to solve equations in the app (APLUS metacognitive and cognitive). Metacognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique that helps students develop skills to think about their own thinking and learning processes. Cognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique in which students learn concepts and procedures in a way that builds iteratively on their skills. The study period lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition worked with a different form of the APLUS app with cognitive scaffolding only to provide students conceptual knowledge assistance to build iteratively on their algebra skills (APLUS cognitive). This version of the app did not include metacognitive scaffolding. Like the intervention condition, the study period for the comparison condition lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Support for implementation
No additional supports for the implementation of the intervention are described in the manuscript.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for APLUS Cognitive + APLUS Metacognitive)
- 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 Procedural Skill Test |
APLUS Cognitive + APLUS Metacognitive vs. APLUS Metacognitive |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.63 |
0.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed Procedural Skill Test |
APLUS Cognitive + APLUS Metacognitive vs. APLUS Metacognitive |
0 Days |
Pre-test quartile 1 students;
|
0.36 |
0.45 |
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
-
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 across 22 algebra classes in three middle schools in rural cities. The cities and states in which the study was conducted were not specified.
Study sample
Within the contrast presented in this review, 168 students in grades 7 and 8 from 22 algebra classes were included in the study. Students who completed both the pretest and posttest and participated in all four days of the intervention were included in the analytic sample. Information on the demographic characteristics of the sample (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) was not reported in the manuscript.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition worked with a form of the Artificial Peer Learning environment Using SimStudent (APLUS), an app designed to help students learn to solve algebra equations through teaching an artificial peer (SimStudent). The intervention condition is a hybrid form of APLUS that incorporates both metacognitive and cognitive scaffolding to provide students with assistance on how to teach SimStudent and how to solve equations in the app (APLUS metacognitive and cognitive). Metacognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique that helps students develop skills to think about their own thinking and learning processes. Cognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique in which students learn concepts and procedures in a way that builds iteratively on their skills. The study period lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition worked with a different form of the APLUS app with metacognitive scaffolding only to provide students with assistance on how to teach SimStudent (APLUS metacognitive). This version of the app did not include cognitive scaffolding. Like the intervention condition, the study period for the comparison condition lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Support for implementation
No additional supports for the implementation of the intervention are described in the manuscript.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for APLUS Metacognitive)
- 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 Conceptual Knowledge Test |
APLUS Metacognitive vs. APLUS Cognitive |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.50 |
0.46 |
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
-
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 across 22 algebra classes in three middle schools in rural cities. The cities and states in which the study was conducted were not specified.
Study sample
Within the contrast presented in this review, 177 students in grades 7 and 8 from 22 algebra classes were included in the study. Students who completed both the pretest and posttest and participated in all four days of the intervention were included in the analytic sample. Information on the demographic characteristics of the sample (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) was not reported in the manuscript.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition worked with a form of the Artificial Peer Learning environment Using SimStudent (APLUS), an app designed to help students learn to solve algebra equations through teaching an artificial peer (SimStudent). The intervention condition is a metacognitive form of APLUS that provides students with assistance on how to teach SimStudent. Metacognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique that helps students develop skills to think about their own thinking and learning processes. Conversely, cognitive scaffolding is a teaching technique in which students learn concepts and procedures in a way that builds iteratively on their skills. The study period lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition worked with a different form of the APLUS app with cognitive scaffolding only to provide students conceptual knowledge assistance to build iteratively on their algebra skills (APLUS cognitive). This version of the app did not include metacognitive scaffolding. Like the intervention condition, the study period for the comparison condition lasted six consecutive days with one classroom period (42 minutes) per day. All students took an online pretest on the first day, completed a 6-minute introduction video on the second day, taught the SimStudent through the APLUS program for the next four days and completed an online posttest on the last day.
Support for implementation
No additional supports for the implementation of the intervention are described in the manuscript.
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).