Support for Struggling Students in Algebra: Contributions of Incorrect Worked Examples
Barbieri, Christina; Booth, Julie L. (2016). Learning and Individual Differences v48 p36-44. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566951
-
examining81Students, grade8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Correct worked examples - Barbieri & Booth (2016))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student self-reports of their competence in algebra |
Correct worked examples - Barbieri & Booth (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.77 |
5.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Systems of equations knowledge test |
Correct worked examples - Barbieri & Booth (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
47.91 |
50.34 |
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: 59%
Male: 41% -
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 was conducted in five Algebra 1 classrooms located in a middle school in the United States. The authors do not describe the type of middle school or the state in which it was located.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 45 students to the intervention group that received correct worked examples and 47 students to the comparison group. The authors provide sample information based on the full sample of 140 students. Among the 140 students, approximately 97% of students were in 8th grade.
Intervention Group
The correct worked examples condition allows students to observe how algebra problems can be solved so that students can emulate successful strategies on their own. The correct worked examples intervention was offered to individual students in class during their Algebra 1 class period. Students received 4 worksheets over a period of 2 to 7 weeks during the time teachers were covering systems of equations. Teachers allowed students 20 minutes to complete each worksheet. Each worksheet asked students to solve a system of equations by finding the values of two unknowns, using a different method on each worksheet (graphing, substitution, elimination with addition and subtraction, and elimination with multiplication). Each worksheet contained four examples of fictitious students' correctly worked solutions to problems with key steps highlighted and prompts to help students understand the examples. In addition to the four examples, the worksheets included four additional problems for students to complete on their own.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received four worksheets over the same period as the intervention group that included eight problems for students to solve on their own, but the worksheets contained no examples of correctly worked solutions.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe any support for implementation.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Incorrect worked examples - Barbieri and Booth (2016))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student self-reports of their competence in algebra |
Incorrect worked examples - Barbieri and Booth (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.19 |
5.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Student self-reports sense of belonging in math class |
Incorrect worked examples - Barbieri and Booth (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.53 |
4.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Systems of equations knowledge test |
Incorrect worked examples - Barbieri and Booth (2016) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.30 |
50.34 |
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: 59%
Male: 41% -
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 was conducted in five Algebra 1 classrooms located in a middle school in the United States. The authors do not describe the type of middle school or the state in which it was located.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 46 students to the intervention group that received incorrect worked examples and 47 students to the business-as-usual problem-solving group. The authors provide sample information based on the full sample of 140 students. Among the 140 students, approximately 97% of students were in 8th grade.
Intervention Group
The key conceptual motivation behind the incorrect worked examples condition is that students can view mistakes as positive learning experiences. Using errors as learning tools can help students see mistakes as part of the learning process and help students build math competence. The incorrect worked examples intervention was offered to individual students in class during their Algebra 1 class period. Students received 4 worksheets over a period of 2 to 7 weeks during the time teachers were covering systems of equations. Teachers allowed students 20 minutes to complete each worksheet. Each worksheet asked students to solve a system of equations by finding the values of two unknowns, using a different method on each worksheet (graphing, substitution, elimination with addition and subtraction, and elimination with multiplication). Each worksheet contained four examples of fictitious students' incorrectly worked solutions. In addition to the four examples, the worksheets included four additional problems for students to complete on their own.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received four worksheets over the same period as the intervention group that included eight problems for students to solve on their own, but the worksheets contained no examples of incorrectly worked solutions.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe 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, 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).