Wolfson, M., Koedinger, K., Ritter, S., & McGuire, C. (2008). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning, Inc.
Reviewed: June 2016
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 Cognitive Tutor Algebra I.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Multiple Representations Test |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 9-12;
|
3.54 |
2.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT) |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 9–12;
|
0.50 |
0.45 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 34% |
The study took place in three high schools (Langley, Brashear, and Carrick) in the Pittsburgh Public Schools District. In the study schools, 50% of the student body were African American, 50% came from one-parent families, and 15% went on to attend college.
Among the full study sample, 34% were African American, 56% were female, and 60% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Sixty-five percent of the sample were in the ninth grade, 24% were in the tenth grade, 8% were in the eleventh grade, and 2% were in the twelfth grade.
Students in the intervention group were taught in the 1993–94 school year using an early version of the Cognitive Tutor® software, then referred to as the Pittsburgh Urban Mathematics Project curriculum plus Practical Algebra Tutor program (PUMP + PAT). The curriculum emphasized the use of functional models, such as tables, graphs, and symbols, to solve real-world problems. Students in the intervention group used the tutoring software in about 25 of the 180 class periods; therefore, this early version varies from the current version of Cognitive Tutor®, which uses software for about 40% of instructional time.
Students in the comparison group were taught using their schools’ traditional Algebra I curricula, which were not specified in the study.
No information was provided about the training or support offered to implement the intervention.
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.
Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8(1), 30–43.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. (2001). Report of results from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Cognitive Tutor research report PA-91-01). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Reviewed: April 2007
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 Mathematics in Context (MiC).
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