Students with lower baseline performance (below the 50th percentile) showed significantly greater math achievement gains with ASSISTments than matched virtual peers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Among the 1,626 students below the 50th baseline percentile, treatment students outperformed comparison students by 1.20 points (p = .020), an effect size of 0.10. → Feng 2025

Evidence¶

Feng 2025¶

Feng, M., Li, L., Brezack, N., & Schneider, M. (2025). Scaling teachers' professional development for ASSISTments companion report: Implementation analysis of the ASSISTments intervention. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED677784

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

Subgroup analysis of the quasi-experimental study's 1,626 low-performing students against matched virtual comparison peers. "This difference is statistically significant (p = .020)" with printed effect size 0.10 (small).

"On average, students with lower levels of performance in the treatment group scored 214.38 compared to 213.18 for the matched comparison students, a difference of 1.20 points. This difference is statistically significant (p = .020) and corresponds to an effect size of 0.10"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Across the full sample, students receiving the ASSISTments intervention performed comparably to their virtual comparison peers on end-of-year MAP Growth — related
• Low-performing students (below the 50th pretest percentile) showed significant improvement with vPLC-augmented ASSISTments — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Achievement-quartile analysis shows the intervention was most effective for students in the 2nd quartile (25th–50th percentiles) of baseline achievement — related
• Rural students in the 2nd baseline achievement quartile significantly outperformed their comparison peers by 1.53 points — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A virtual comparison group matched on pretest, locale, FRL, and test dates achieved baseline equivalence with the treatment group (effect size = -0.03) — related
• vPLC-augmented ASSISTments did not significantly improve overall middle school math achievement relative to a virtual comparison group — a broader claim this one bears on
• Tutor-based practice produced greater learning gains than paper-based practice on matched problem sets — related
• Among RL-in-education papers testing statistical significance, 18 of 35 report at least one RL policy significantly outperforming all baselines, while over half of all reviewed papers report no statistical analysis — related
• The vPLC-augmented ASSISTments treatment sample comprised 59 teachers and 2,855 students in grades 6-8 from 36 public schools across 24 U.S. states, half in rural areas — related
• In the full-sample analysis, baseline demographic and prior-achievement differences between treatment and matched comparison groups were minimal, with effect sizes below the WWC threshold — related
• Rural students overall did not show a significant effect, but low-performing rural students did — related
• Students with lower baseline self-efficacy achieved greater learning gains in both practice formats, though the relationship varied with favorability toward each format — related