Algebra ability level differences appear on both criteria with no treatment-by-ability interaction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1972 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? High ability students scored better than intermediate, who scored better than low ability students, on both criteria. → Bassler 1972 q2 i? No interactions of any order among treatment, ability level, and test occasion were significant on either criterion. → Bassler 1972 (2)

Evidence¶

Bassler 1972¶

Bassler, O. C.; Beers, M. I.; Richardson, L. I. (1972). Comparison of Two Instructional Strategies for Teaching the Solution to Verbal Problems. Final Report. George Peabody College for Teachers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED075260

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Ability was a significant factor on both criteria (equation criterion F = 21.97; solution criterion F = 9.03, both p < .05), based on Algebra Prognosis Test groupings: "high ability subjects scored better than did intermediate ability subjects who, in turn, scored better than low ability subjects."

"Ability level differences manifesteu themselves as expected; that is, high ability subjects scored better than did intermediate ability subjects who, in turn, scored better than low ability subjects."

Bassler 1972 (2)¶

Bassler, O. C.; Beers, M. I.; Richardson, L. I. (1972). Comparison of Two Instructional Strategies for Teaching the Solution to Verbal Problems. Final Report. George Peabody College for Teachers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED075260

q2 · i? · causal · r2

As hypothesized, the treatment-by-ability interaction was non-significant on both criteria (equation F = 1.14; solution F = 0.04); the summary states "There were no interactions between any combination of treatment, ability level ami test occasion."

"There were no interactions between any combination of treatment, ability level ami test occasion."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Ability moderates the hierarchical-organization advantage: low-ability subjects showed no significant benefit, while medium-ability subjects did — related
• High- and low-prior-knowledge learners differ significantly on an algebra posttest and on intrinsic and germane cognitive load, but not on extraneous load — related
• Prior knowledge, worked-example type (full vs completion) and task difficulty show a significant three-way interaction on an algebra posttest, but not on self-reported cognitive load — related
• Polya and Dahmus methods do not differ on the problem solution criterion — related
• Cognitive apprenticeship instruction produced no significant differences from traditional instruction on post-treatment problem-solving, final, and standardized mathematics exams in community college technical mathematics — related
• Hourly-exam differences between groups occurred on trigonometry tests rather than algebra tests — related
• In a cluster randomized study across 73 high schools, Carnegie Learning students scored higher on the Algebra Proficiency Exam, with cohort effect sizes of +0.07 and +0.21 — related
• Ninth grade algebra students solve verbally presented problems better than symbolically presented problems
• On the problem solution criterion, verbal problem solving scores do not decline over four weeks and rise on the more complex problems — related
• Polya Method students outscore Dahmus Method students on the equation criterion for verbal problems — related
• Dahmus Method students translated phrases successfully but failed to combine them into a single solution equation — related