Embedding test-taking strategies and ACT practice items in algebra improved practice ACT mathematics scores (McMann, 1994; effect size 0.34)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In a randomized controlled trial of 196 students, students whose algebra course embedded general test-taking strategies and ACT practice items scored statistically significantly higher on a practice ACT mathematics exam than comparison students (effect size 0.34, improvement index +13). → ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016 q3 i1 Supplemental findings for the same trial show small positive effects for male students (effect size 0.35, p .09) and female students (effect size 0.38, p .06) that were not statistically significant in either gender subgroup. → ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs. (2016). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/664

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Ten-week randomized trial in second-year algebra sections at a Michigan high school; the WWC row reports intervention mean 26.89 (SD 8.24) versus comparison 24.01 (SD 8.69), mean difference 2.88, effect size 0.34, improvement index +13, p .02 — a statistically significant positive effect.

"Practice ACT mathematics exam High school students 196 26.89 (8.24) 24.01 (8.69) 2.88 0.34 +13 .02"

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs 2016 (2)¶

ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs. (2016). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/664

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Supplemental (non-rating) subgroup findings from the same trial: male students (n=96) show effect size 0.35, +14, p .09, and the table reports female students (n=100) at effect size 0.38, +15, p .06 — neither subgroup contrast statistically significant at the printed p-values.

"Practice ACT mathematics exam Male high school students 96 26.76 (8.36) 23.78 (8.68) 2.98 0.35 +14 .09"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• ACT/SAT test preparation and coaching programs have positive effects on general academic achievement (high school), based on six studies averaging a +9 improvement index — a broader claim this one bears on
• Using embedded aids required students to take about 7% longer, on average, to complete an assigned chapter, and comprehension scores reflected this additional effort. — related
• Online and face-to-face Algebra I credit recovery showed no statistically significant differences on any second-year outcomes — related
• Online Algebra I credit recovery students were less likely to recover credit and scored lower on an algebra post-test than face-to-face students — related
• Before this trial, online credit recovery was widely used despite no rigorous evidence on its relative efficacy versus face-to-face courses — related
• A 6-week computerized Latin and Greek root-word program improved SAT verbal scores (Holmes & Keffer, 1995; effect size 0.49) — related
• Self-reported test preparation showed no significant difference in ACT composite scores in a national sample (Scholes & Lain, 1997, Experiment 2) — reports the opposite
• A school SAT preparation course improved SAT scores at one Texas school (Filizola, 2008; domain average effect size 0.28), driven by the mathematics subtest — related
• Test strategies and item practice are not effective mechanisms for raising ACT scores; improvements are smaller the more class time goes to test preparation — reports the opposite
• Embedding computational thinking in a sixth-grade mathematics classroom significantly increased students' understanding of mathematical processes versus control — related