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)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 With pretest and teaching experience controlled, Treatment 2.3 showed no significant improvement over Control 2.1 (p = .190, ES = 0.13). → Irving 2016 q3 i0 Without the pretest covariate, the Treatment 2.3 versus Control 2.1 comparison was significant (p = .046, ES = 0.19). → Irving 2016 (2)

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 · i0 · causal · r2

Longitudinal HLM (model 5p) comparing Cohort 2 teachers' year 3 treatment data with their year 1 baseline, with pretest and experience controlled. The article reports the printed effect size ES = 0.13, γ20 = 0.69, p = .190; equivalence was not tested.

"when controlling for the pretest and years of teaching experience, the treatment group showed no significant improvement (γ20 = 0.69, p = .190) with a very small effect size (ES = 0.13)."

Irving 2016 (2)¶

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 · i0 · causal · r2

Longitudinal HLM (model 5np) for Cohort 2 year 3 without the pretest covariate. The article reports the printed effect size of 0.19, γ10 = 1.30, p = .046, with treatment students scoring about 1.3 points higher; teaching experience was non-significant in both models 5p and 5np.

"when the pretest was removed as a covariate, the comparison produced a significant difference between treatment and control (γ10 = 1.30, p = .046) and an effect size of 0.19."

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
• 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
• Longitudinal comparison of Cohort 2 teachers' year 2 CCT classrooms against their own year 1 control classrooms shows significant improvement (ES = 0.20) — related
• In year 1, CCT treatment classrooms significantly outperformed control classrooms on the algebra posttest (ES = 0.30) — related
• The CCT treatment effect on comprehension was statistically significant only for students with pretest ORF up to 0.20 SD above the sample mean (64.0% of the sample), and not for higher-fluency students — related
• Years of teaching experience was a consistently significant covariate, adding about one posttest point per five to ten years of experience — related