On-line tutoring for math achievement testing: A controlled evaluation

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 43-55

  Beal, Carole R ^a   Walles, Rena ^b   Arroyo, Ivon ^b   Woolf, Beverly P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947589701     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15414914     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Institutes for Research. (2005). Reassessing U. S. international mathematics performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA. Washington DC: American
2. Institutes for Research. Arroyo, I., Beal, C., Murray, T., Walles, R., & Woolf, B. (2004). Web-based multimedia tutoring for high stakes achievement tests. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3220, pp. 468-477. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
3. st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. MenloParkCA: AAAI Press.
4. Brown, A. L., Ellery, S., & Campione, J. (1994). Creating Zones of Proximal Development electronically. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices: A symposium in mathematics and science education, pp. 341-468. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
5. th graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 316-326.
6. Byrnes, J. P., & Takahira, S. (1993). Explaining gender differences on SAT-Math items. Developmental Psychology, 29, 805-810.
7. Carnegie Learning, Inc. (2002, May). Results from Moore OK. Cognitive Tutor Research Report OK-01-01. Pittsburgh PA.
8. Casey, M., Nuttall, R., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33, 669-680.
9. Ceci, S. J., & Paierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap-closing: When the "havenots" gain but the "haves" gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149-160.
10. College Board. (2005). SAT Math scores for 2005 highest on record. New York: The College Board.
11. College Board. (2004). How the test is scored. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/ understanding/howscored.html
12. Deubel, P. (2001). The effectiveness of mathematics software for Ohio Proficiency Test preparation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33, 5.
13. D'Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2006). Predicting affective states expressed through an emote-aloud procedure from Auto Tutor's mixed-initiative dialogue. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 3-28.
14. Gallagher, A. (1992). Sex differences in problem solving used by high scoring examinees on the SAT-M. College Board Report No. 92-2, ETS RR No. 92-33. New York: College Board Publications.
15. Gollub, J. P., Bertenthal, M. W., Labov, J. B., & Curtis, P. C. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U. S. high schools. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
16. Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Torner, G. (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
17. Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.
20. Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic achievement in reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 109-116.
21. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The Nation 's Report Card: Mathematics. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
22. Nguyen, D. M., & Kulm, G. (2005). Using web-based practice to enhance mathematics learning and achievement. Journal of Interactive On-line Learning, 3, 1-16.
23. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 533-578.
24. Reuhkala, M. (2001). Mathematical skills in ninth-graders: Relationship with visuo-spatial abilities and working memory. Educational Psychology, 21, 387-399.
25. U.S. Dept. of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind is working. Retrieved July 6, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/ nclbworking.html
26. Willingham, W., & Cole, N. (Eds.). (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.