Rohrer, Doug; Dedrick, Robert F.; Stershic, Sandra (2015). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED557355
Reviewed: August 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (slope problems) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
30 Days |
Slope problems;
|
65.00 |
29.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed algebra assessment (graphing problems) |
Interleaved practice vs. Blocked practice |
30 Days |
Graph problems;
|
84.00 |
54.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 10% | |
| Black | 14% | |
| Other or unknown | 29% | |
| White | 47% |
| Hispanic | 22% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 78% |
The study took place in nine seventh-grade mathematics classrooms in a public middle school in Tampa, Florida, during the 2013-14 school year.
A total of 63 students in grade 7 who received a passing score on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in grade 6 were included in the sample. The 63 students were taught by 3 mathematics teachers in 9 classrooms in one school. In the analysis of mathematics graphing problems, 4 classrooms and 30 students were assigned to interleaved practice (the intervention) and 5 classrooms and 33 students were assigned to blocked practice (the comparison). In the analysis of slope problems, 5 classrooms and 33 students were assigned to interleaved practice and 4 classrooms and 30 students were assigned to blocked practice. Approximately 52% of the students were male, 38% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. In total, 47% were White, 14% were Black, 10% were Asian, and 29% had racial category that was not specified (including 6% identified as multiracial).
Interleaved practice is a technique that involves integrating problems from current and past lessons to support student learning. In this approach, students complete problem sets and assignments that require multiple strategies learned at different points in the curriculum, rather than a single strategy learned most recently. For example, a student may answer a problem that requires four different skills learned previously rather than four problems that require only the skill learned the previous day. All students received 10 practice assignments over 88 days, followed by a review session five days later. The 10 practice assignments contained 12 graphing problems and 12 slope problems overall, as well as additional problems on other math topics. Students received the same first two assignments which contained four graphing and four slope problems respectively; however, the content of the remaining eight assignments varied for the interleaved and blocked students. For the interleaved graph and slope groups, students received the remaining eight graphing or slope problems spread out between the remaining eight assignments.
Students in the comparison group received a blocked practice approach in which practice problems requiring the strategy introduced in the immediately preceding lesson are presented. As with the interleaved groups, all students received 10 practice assignments over 88 days, followed by a review session five days later. The same first two assignments provided to the intervention group were presented, but the blocked graph and slope students received the remaining eight graphing or slope problems immediately within the third assignment, rather than them being spread out over the remaining eight assignments (as in the interleaved practice).
The study does 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, 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