Fitzsimmons, C. J., Morehead, K. T., Thompson, C. A., Buerke, M., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). The Journal of Experimental Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1891009 .
Reviewed: September 2022
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 percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
37.96 |
29.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.20 |
25.58 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
39.30 |
30.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.40 |
27.22 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.91 |
19.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.24 |
22.56 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 21% | |
| White | 79% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 31% | |
| Other or unknown | 69% |
The study was conducted in four elementary schools in two school districts in Ohio.
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with elementary school students. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with feedback. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with undergraduate students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. A total of 49 students in first and second grade were included in the study. Fifty-eight percent of students were female. The study authors do not describe the demographics of the student sample further. In the schools from which the students were recruited, 31% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 79% were White.
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. Students were asked to place numbers on a number line that ranged from zero to one thousand. Students moved a slider along the line to make their estimate. Students completed the study practice problems and test problems on a computer in a quiet room at their school. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct.
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
Reviewed: September 2022
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 percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.14 |
29.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.70 |
25.58 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.56 |
22.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.19 |
24.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.09 |
19.36 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.02 |
20.84 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 21% | |
| White | 79% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 31% | |
| Other or unknown | 69% |
The study was conducted in four elementary schools in two school districts in Ohio.
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with elementary school students. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with undergraduate students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. A total of 46 students in first and second grade were included in the study. Fifty-eight percent of students were female. The study authors do not describe the demographics of the student sample further. In the schools from which the students were recruited, 31% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 79% were White.
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. Students were asked to place numbers on a number line that ranged from zero to one thousand. Students moved a slider along the line to make their estimate. Students completed the study practice problems and test problems on a computer in a quiet room at their school. In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement.
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
Reviewed: September 2022
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 percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
37.41 |
29.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
27.92 |
25.58 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.75 |
30.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.22 |
27.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in categorization |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.56 |
24.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed percent absolute error in number line estimation |
Magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) vs. Magnitude estimation practice with feedback – Fitzsimmons et al., (2021) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.29 |
20.84 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 21% | |
| White | 79% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 31% | |
| Other or unknown | 69% |
The study was conducted in four elementary schools in two districts in Ohio.
This manuscript examines three different versions of the magnitude estimation practice intervention with elementary school students. This review focuses on one version called magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples. The other two versions of the intervention, and a description of their differences, can be accessed through the drop-down menu. The manuscript also describes an experiment using versions of this intervention with undergraduate students. The details of that experiment can be found on a separate study page. A total of 47 students in first and second grade were included in the study. Fifty-eight percent of students were female. The study authors do not describe the demographics of the student sample further. In the schools from which the students were recruited, 31% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 79% were White.
The intervention provides students with practice in magnitude estimation which is intended to improve students’ accuracy placing whole numbers on a number line. The intervention was provided by members of the study team and delivered to individual students. The intervention was administered in a single 30-minute session. During that 30-minute session, students first took the pretest, then iteratively practiced number line placement problems with the support of the study team member who administered the session, followed by the student taking 10 of the 30 posttest questions at a time. Students were asked to place numbers on a number line that ranged from zero to one thousand. Students moved a slider along the line to make their estimate. Students completed the study practice problems and test problems on a computer in a quiet room at their school. In the magnitude estimation practice with correct worked examples group, the study team member showed students a correct number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was correct. If the student did not respond, the study team member continued to prompt the students until they provided an answer. The student responses were recorded by the study team member.
The business-as-usual comparison was to a group of students that engaged in magnitude estimation practice without guidance or feedback in a single 30-minute session. Students completed number line practice problems and test problems individually on computers. In this group, the study team members did not provide students with any prompts for explanations and students were not asked to judge the confidence of their answers. The intervention group was compared to other versions of the intervention as well: In the magnitude estimation practice with incorrect worked examples group, the study team member showed students an incorrect number line placement and then asked the student to explain why the answer was wrong. In the magnitude estimation practice with feedback group, the study team member asked the student to place the number on the number line, after which the study team member showed the student where the number really belonged and asked the student to explain why their placement was similar, higher, or lower than the correct placement.
The study team administered the activities in the intervention and comparison conditions. No information about training or preparation of the study team is provided.
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