Kirby, P.C. (2004). New Orleans, LA: I CAN Learn. .
Reviewed: August 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn®.
Reviewed: August 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn® Algebra.
Reviewed: August 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn® Geometry.
Reviewed: March 2009
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for I CAN Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (GCRCT) |
I CAN Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra vs. Business as Usual |
2003-2004 |
Grade 8;
|
333.54 |
319.89 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 1% | |
| White | 93% |
| Hispanic | 7% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 93% |
The participating students were from one middle school in the Gilmer County School District in northwestern Georgia.
The study sample included 254 eighth-grade students (91 in I CAN Learn® classes and 163 in traditional classes) in Gilmer Middle School in Ellijay, Georgia who were not classified to receive special education or gifted services. School staff first stratified sample students based on prior year achievement and then randomly assigned the students to I CAN Learn® or traditional classes. Approximately 49% of the total sample were males (45% I CAN Learn®, 52% comparison) and 51% were females (55% I CAN Learn®, 48% comparison); 47% of the sample qualified for the National School Lunch Program (41% I CAN Learn®, 50% comparison); 93% were Caucasian (95% I CAN Learn®, 91% comparison), 0.5% were African-American (0% I CAN Learn®, 1% comparison), and 7% were Hispanic (6% I CAN Learn®, 8% comparison).
Students were taught by one teacher using the I CAN Learn® mathematics curriculum. The intervention teacher used the I CAN Learn® computer system as the primary system of instructional delivery and used the Classroom Manager class management/grade book system to identify students who needed additional instruction on specific concepts. The intervention and evaluation occurred during the 2003–04 academic year.
Comparison students were taught in traditional classes, with the teacher serving as the primary deliverer of instruction. The author did not provide further information on the curriculum.
The primary outcome measure was the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (GCRCT) Math Test administered in 2004. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
The intervention teacher received professional development in using the I CAN Learn® software and managing the instructional environment.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube