Ritter, S., Kulikowich, J., Lei, P., McGuire, C., & Morgan, P. (2007). In T. Hirashima, H. U. Hoppe, & S. Shwu-Ching Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (pp. 13–20). Netherlands: IOS Press. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/.
Reviewed: September 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Educational Testing Service (ETS) End-of-Course Algebra Test |
Cognitive Tutor Algebra I vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
17.41 |
15.28 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 5% | |
| Native American | 18% | |
| White | 65% |
| Hispanic | 4% |
Study was conducted on 9th graders (14-15 year olds) in Moore Independent School District, near Oklahoma City, OK.
The study included 9th graders (14-15 year olds). No other sample characteristics were provided for this sample of students. The district is described as 65 percent White, 18 percent Native American, 5 percent Black, 5 percent Asian, and 4 percent Hispanic.
Cognitive Tutor classes involve three components: text, intelligent tutoring software, and teacher training. Students spend 2 class periods per week in the computer lab using software, which tracks the progress of student understanding. (The study was conducted in the first year of Cognitive Tutor implementation.)
McDougal-Littell Heath Algebra I was used by the comparison classrooms. The authors refer to the comparison curriculum as a traditional textbook.
Teachers attended 4 days of initial training (before teaching with Cognitive Tutor) to familiarize themselves with the software, learn the pedagogical approaches used during classroom instruction, and learn techniques for integrating the software and classroom instruction.
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.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. (2004). Carnegie Learning research report: Moore Independent School District. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.carnegielearning.com
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