Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. (2016). Cambridge, MA: School Effectiveness & Inequality Initiative.
Reviewed: February 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final exam: Multiple choice and short answer questions |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Final exam test score: Short answer |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Tablet only |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Non-White;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score: Short answer |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Male;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Unrestricted use |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Tablet only |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score: Short answer |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Unrestricted use |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
White;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score: Multiple choice |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score: Multiple choice |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Unrestricted use |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Final exam test score: Multiple choice |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access in classrooms: Tablet only |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Final exam test score |
prohibiting Internet access vs. Internet access |
1 Semester |
Female;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 11% | |
| Other or unknown | 24% | |
| White | 66% |
| Hispanic | 10% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 90% |
The study took place at the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point in New York. The USMA is a 4-year undergraduate university with an approximate enrollment of 4,400 students. The USMA provides students with a full scholarship with students’ commitment to serve as an officer in the military for 8 years post-graduation.
Students enrolled in sections of an introductory economics course participated in the study. The sections dictated when a student participated in the course. The exact number of sections assigned to each condition was not reported, but a total of 50 sections were enrolled in the study. From the 50 sections, the study authors included 726 students in the sample. Of these, 270 were assigned to the group that did not allow Internet-enabled devices, 248 were assigned to the group that permitted full access to the use of computers or tablets (unrestricted use), and 208 were assigned to the group that permitted access to tablet use only.
Students in the intervention classrooms were not allowed to use their Internet-enabled laptops or tablets during the course for the entire semester.
Students in the first comparison group (unrestricted use) were allowed to use Internet-enabled laptops or tablets throughout the class without restrictions. Students in the second comparison condition were allowed to use Internet-enabled tablets, but the tablets had to remain face-up on their desks. In both conditions, professors were allowed to restrict or remove the use if it was obvious a student was distracted from the class discussion.
Information on support for implementation was not reported.
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