Longitudinal comparison of Cohort 2 teachers' year 2 CCT classrooms against their own year 1 control classrooms shows significant improvement (ES = 0.20)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 With pretest and teaching experience controlled, Treatment 2.2 students scored about 1.1 points higher than their Control 2.1 counterparts (p = .009, ES = 0.20). → Irving 2016

Evidence¶

Irving 2016¶

Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D., & Sanalan, V. A. (2016). Classroom Connectivity and Algebra 1 Achievement: A Three-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35(2), 131-151. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095322

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Longitudinal HLM (model 4p) using Cohort 2 teachers as their own year 1 controls, with year 2 as treatment. The article reports the printed effect size ES = 0.20, γ20 = 1.08, p = .009; model 4np without pretest was also significant (γ10 = 1.35, p = .004, ES = 0.20).

"when controlling for the pretest and years of teaching experience, the treatment group shows significant improvement (γ20 = 1.08, p = .009) with a moderate effect size (ES = 0.20)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CCT with professional development outperforms graphing-calculator-only instruction on algebra 1 achievement across three years, with effect sizes from 0.19 to 0.37 — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the year 3 longitudinal comparison, the CCT effect was not significant with pretest controlled (ES = 0.13) but significant without it (ES = 0.19) — related
• Cohort 1 cross-sectional effects in years 2 and 3 were mixed: significant without pretest control (ES = 0.36) but not significant with it (ES = 0.23, 0.24) — related
• In year 1, CCT treatment classrooms significantly outperformed control classrooms on the algebra posttest (ES = 0.30) — related