Olsen, Jennifer K.; Rummel, Nikol; Aleven, Vincent (2016). Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (12th, Singapore,. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577019
Reviewed: October 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-developer measure of procedural knowledge of fractions |
Intelligent Tutoring System offered in collaborative format vs. Intelligent Tutoring Systems |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
0.58 |
0.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed measure of conceptual knowledge of fractions |
Intelligent Tutoring System offered in collaborative format vs. Intelligent Tutoring Systems |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
0.68 |
0.71 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed measure of conceptual knowledge of fractions |
Intelligent Tutoring System offered in collaborative format vs. Intelligent Tutoring Systems |
1 Day |
Students who worked with tutors on procedurally-oriented problem sets;
|
0.67 |
0.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developer measure of procedural knowledge of fractions |
Intelligent Tutoring System offered in collaborative format vs. Intelligent Tutoring Systems |
1 Day |
Students who worked with tutors on conceptually-oriented problem sets;
|
0.50 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
| Other or unknown | 100% |
This study was conducted in two schools located in two school districts in the United States.
A total of 146 students in grades 4 and 5 were included in the study. The students were taught by five teachers in nine classrooms. The authors do not describe the demographics of the students in the study.
The intervention was collaborative Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) which is a computer-based program that supports students’ math learning. Students were offered ITS in a whole-class format. In each classroom, teachers paired students and assigned them to work collaboratively on procedural or conceptual math problem sets for the duration of the intervention. The procedural problem sets tested students’ ability to perform necessary steps and actions in sequence to solve a problem while the conceptual problem sets tested students’ implicit and explicit understanding of the principles. Students worked with the ITS for a total of 45 minutes a day for three days.
Students were offered the ITS program but worked on the procedural or conceptual math problems individually (rather than as a student pair) for a total of 45 minutes a day for three days.
The study does not describe any support and training offered to the providers of the intervention.
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