Best and poorest drill pupils both gained more than their non-drill counterparts, narrowing the within-class gap¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1915 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Best 19 drill pupils averaged a gain of 26 points versus 10 for best non-drill pupils; poorest 19 drill pupils averaged -3.1 versus -8 for poorest non-drill; the best-to-poorest ratio fell from 3.1 to 1.9 in drill sections. → Brown 1915 q2 i? On the second test the best 19 of the drill sections scored 1.9 times as many points as the poorest 19, down from 3.1 times on the first test. → Brown 1915 (2)

Evidence¶

Brown 1915¶

Brown, J. C. (1915). An Investigation on the Value of Drill Work in the Fundamental Operations of Arithmetic. Part II. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Gross-gain comparison of the best and poorest 19 pupils of drill versus non-drill sections, based on first-test records. Best drill pupils gained 18 to 46 points (average 26, median 22) versus 6 to 19 points (average 10, median 9) for best non-drill pupils; poorest drill pupils averaged -3.1 versus -8 for poorest non-drill.

"The best 19 of the drill classes made a gain ranging from 18 to 46 points, with an average of 26 points, and a median gain of 22 points."

Brown 1915 (2)¶

Brown, J. C. (1915). An Investigation on the Value of Drill Work in the Fundamental Operations of Arithmetic. Part II. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Comparison of best and poorest 19 of the drill sections across the two tests: the best-to-poorest score ratio was 3.1 times on the first test and 1.9 times on the second test, indicating a narrowed gap under drill. Figures are descriptive ratios; no test statistic is printed.

"On second test best 19 scored 1.9 times as many points as poorest 19."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Drill effect is greatest on the poorest portion of the class and decreases class variability — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Drill classes improved from two to three times as much as non-drill classes in arithmetic fundamentals — a broader claim this one bears on
• Common language teaching methods such as oral drills, memorization, and fast-paced competitive activities disadvantage older learners — related
• Drill classes gained 24.2 percent in total points in the second study, with per-operation gains of 18.5 to 34.2 percent — related