No sex difference in the effect of drill on arithmetic improvement¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The data indicate that boys are neither more nor less influenced by drill than girls; the effect of the drill was practically the same. → Brown 1915

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

Null finding from the study's comparisons of drill and non-drill sections, in which the poorest and best 19 subgroups each contained both boys and girls (e.g., 8 boys and 11 girls among the poorest non-drill 19). No test statistic or effect size is printed for this comparison.

"None of the data collected indicates that boys are either more or less influenced by drill than girls. The effect of the drill was practically the same."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group
• Operations and Place Value — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Drill classes improved from two to three times as much as non-drill classes in arithmetic fundamentals — related
• The cross-lagged model holds equally for intervention and control groups and for boys and girls — related
• Sex-specific subgroup models show the same functional forms for boys and girls, though cubic coefficients for boys were not significant after correction — related