Anand, Padma G.; Ross, Steven M. (1987). Journal of Educational Psychology, v79 n1 p72-78. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ348470
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Curriculum-Based Professional Development vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.28 |
1.12 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Curriculum-Based Professional Development vs. Computer-assisted instruction: concrete context |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.28 |
3.58 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| White | 48% |
The study took place at computers at a university-affiliated elementary school.
The total sample was composed of 45 boys and 51 girls. Fifty were Black and 46 were Caucasian. There were 47 fifth grade students and 49 sixth grade students. The study report did not mention other sample characteristics.
Groups of 1-3 students (each students used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used general referents without meaningful background context.
There were three comparison conditions. The first comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition that completed math units on addition, subtraction, and multiplication of fractions but did not receive any computer-assisted instruction. The second comparison condition was similar to the intervention, but where students received concrete context. Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used specific but non-personal referents. The third comparison condition was also similar to the intervention, but where students received personalized context. Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used referents that were items personally familiar to the student. The information to personalize the intervention was collected in a student biographical questionnaire.
The interventions (all three computer-assisted instruction interventions) were implemented by the researcher. No support for implementation was provided.
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.95 |
1.12 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Computer-assisted instruction: abstract context |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.95 |
2.28 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Computer-assisted instruction: concrete context |
0 Days |
Full samp;
|
5.95 |
3.58 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| White | 48% |
The study took place at computers at a university-affiliated elementary school.
The total sample was composed of 45 boys and 51 girls. Fifty were Black and 46 were Caucasian. There were 47 fifth grade students and 49 sixth grade students. The study report did not mention other sample characteristics.
Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used referents that were items personally familiar to the student. The information to personalize the intervention was collected in a student biographical questionnaire.
There were three comparison conditions. The first comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition that completed math units on addition, subtraction, and multiplication of fractions but did not receive any computer-assisted instruction. The second comparison condition was similar to the intervention, but where students received abstract context. Groups of 1-3 students (each students used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used general referents without meaningful background context. The third comparison condition was also similar to the intervention, but where students received concrete context. Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used specific but non-personal referents.
The interventions (all three computer-assisted instruction interventions) were implemented by the researcher. No support for implementation was provided.
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11 question math achievement test |
Curriculum-Based Measurement vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.58 |
1.12 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
11 question math achievement test |
Curriculum-Based Measurement vs. Computer-assisted instruction: abstract context |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.58 |
2.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
11 question math achievement test |
Curriculum-Based Measurement vs. Computer-assisted instruction: personalized context |
0 Days |
Full samp;
|
3.58 |
5.95 |
Yes |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| White | 48% |
The study took place at computers at a university-affiliated elementary school.
The total sample was composed of 45 boys and 51 girls. Fifty were Black and 46 were Caucasian. There were 47 fifth grade students and 49 sixth grade students. The study report did not mention other sample characteristics.
Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used specific but non-personal referents.
There were three comparison conditions. The first comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition that completed math units on addition, subtraction, and multiplication of fractions but did not receive any computer-assisted instruction. The second comparison condition was similar to the intervention, but where students received abstract context. Groups of 1-3 students (each students used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used general referents without meaningful background context. The third comparison condition was also similar to the intervention, but where students received personalized context. Groups of 1-3 students (each student used a separate computer) attended computer-assisted division of fractions lessons. The lessons were adapted from textbook, workbook, and teacher-made materials. The lessons reviewed math facts, introduced the rule for dividing fractions, and demonstrated the rule with five example problems. The students received example math problems that used referents that were items personally familiar to the student. The information to personalize the intervention was collected in a student biographical questionnaire.
The interventions (all three computer-assisted instruction interventions) were implemented by the researcher. No support for implementation was provided.
Reviewed: September 2010
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 52% | |
| White | 48% |
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
Developing Effective Fractions Instruction for Kindergarten Through 8th Grade Practice Guide