Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 127-144

  Pane, John F ^a   Griffin, Beth Ann ^a   McCaffrey, Daniel F ^b   Karam, Rita ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

algebra; blended learning; education technology; effectiveness; randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899642177     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373713507480     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. The reality of college readiness: National. Iowa City, IA: Author; 2012:.
2. Anderson J. R.,Corbett A. T.,Koedinger K. R.,Pelletier R.Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.Journal of the Learning Sciences. 1995;4:167-207.
3. Arbogast P. G.,Ray W. A.Performance of disease risk scores, propensity scores, and traditional multivariable outcome regression in the presence of multiple confounders.American Journal of Epidemiology. 2011;174:613-620.
4. Barnard J.,Rubin D. B.Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation.Biometrika. 1999;86:948-955.
5. Cabalo J. V.,Vu M.-T.Comparative effectiveness of Carnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutor Algebra I Curriculum: A report of a randomized experiment in the Maui School District. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education; 2007:.
6. Campuzano L.,Dynarski M.,Agodini R.,Rall K.Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts (NCEE 2009-4041). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2009:.
7. Carroll R. J.,Ruppert D.,Stefanski L. A.,Crainiceanu C. M.Measurement error in nonlinear models: A modern perspective. 2006). Measurement error in nonlinear models: A modern perspective (2nd ed.). London, England: Chapman & Hall.London, England: Chapman & Hall; 2006:.
8. Daugherty L.,Phillips A.,Pane J. F.,Karam R.Analysis of Costs in an Algebra I Curriculum Effectiveness Study. RAND Corporation; 2012:.
9. Efron B.,Tibshirani R. J.An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall; 1993:.
10. Fennema E.,Sherman J. A.Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females.JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents of Psychology. 1976;6 (1): 31.
11. Greene W. H.Econometric analysis. 2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003:.
12. Hansen B. B.The prognostic analogue of the propensity score.Biometrika. 2008;95:481-488.
13. Hiebert J.,Stigler J. W.,Jacobs J. K.,Givvin K. B.,Garnier H.,Smith M.,Gallimore R.Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2005;27:111-132.
14. Karam R.,Pane J. F.,Griffin B. A.,Slaughter M. E.Evaluating Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1 Curricula at Scale: Focus on implementation. 2013;:.
15. Koedinger K. R.,Corbett A. T.,Ritter S.,Shapiro L. J.Carnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutor: Summary research results. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning; 2000:.
16. Lipsey M. W.,Puzio K.,Yun C.,Hebert M. A.,Steinka-Fry K.,Cole M. W.,Busick M. D.Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012:.
17. Lockwood J. R.,McCaffrey D. F.Value-added modeling and growth modeling with particular application to teacher and school effectiveness. Lissitz R., ed. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; in press:.
18. Miettinen O. S.Stratification by a multivariate confounder score.American Journal of Epidemiology. 1976;104:609-620.
19. Morgan P.,Ritter S.An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning; 2002:.
20. Mullis I. V. S.,Martin M. O.,Foy P.,Alka A.TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College; 2012:.
21. The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2011. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2011:.
22. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author; 2000:.
23. Pane J. F.,McCaffrey D. F.,Slaughter M. E.,Steele J. L.,Ikemoto G. S.An experiment to evaluate the efficacy of Cognitive Tutor Geometry.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2010;3:254-281.
24. Pashler H.,Bain P.,Bottge B.,Graesser A.,Koedinger K.,McDaniel M.,Metcalfe J.Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2007:.
25. Raudenbush S. W.,Bryk A. S.Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2002:.
26. Ritter S.,Anderson J. R.,Koedinger K. R.,Corbett A.The Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education.Psychonomics Bulletin & Review. 2007;14:249-255.
27. Ritter S.,Kulikowich J.,Lei P.,McGuire C. L.,Morgan P.What evidence matters? A randomized field trial of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I.Supporting Learning Flow Through Integrative Technologies. 2007;162:13-20.
28. Rubin D. B.Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1987:.
29. Schacter J.The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, Milken Family Foundation; 1999:.
30. Stecker P. M.,Fuchs L. S.,Fuchs D.Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research.Psychology in the Schools. 2005;42:795-819.
31. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development; 2010:.
32. What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences; 2011:.
33. Understanding the implications of online learning for educational productivity. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology; 2012:.
34. Wenglinsky H.Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center; 1998:.
35. WWC Intervention Report: Cognitive Tutor®. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; 2004:.
36. WWC Intervention Report: Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor®. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; 2013:.