The effect of mathematics test practice varies across prior-achievement levels, with significant effects at intermediate-to-high levels (levels 3 and 4) but not at the lowest or highest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Interaction effects by proficiency band in T1 were significant for level 3 (b = 2.82, SE = 1.23) and level 4 (b = 5.09, SE = 2.09), but not for level 1 (b = −1.86), level 2 (b = 1.99), or level 5 (b = 4.73); the overall test of equal effects was not rejected (p = 0.327). → Avvisati 2020

Evidence¶

Avvisati 2020¶

Avvisati, F., & Borgonovi, F. (2020). Learning Mathematics Problem Solving through Test Practice: a Randomized Field Experiment on a Global Scale. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09520-6

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Moderation analysis (model 10 in Table 4) assigning students to five proficiency groups based on their T1 mathematics score. "Math practice interacted with (level 3) 2.82 *" and level 4 were significant; levels 1, 2, and 5 were not. The p value for equal effects across bands was 0.327.

"Math practice interacted with (lowest performance: level 1) −1.86 (2.28) Math practice interacted with (level 2) 1.99 (1.56) Math practice interacted with (level 3) 2.82 * (1.23) Math practice interacted with (level 4) 5.09 * (2.09) Math practice interacted with (highest performance: level 5) 4.73 (3.07)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• ChatGPT exposure effects vary across the school performance distribution, with positive estimates for lower-performing schools and negative for top-performing schools, but this pattern is not robust — related
• DRL scaffolding significantly benefits high prior knowledge students while BKT does not, and condition-by-prior-knowledge interactions are not significant — related
• Critical thinking improvement differed by proficiency level: high-level students gained 18%, intermediate 12%, and low-level 8%, with asymmetric feedback adaptation — related
• Prior programming performance moderates the misalignment–performance association, with the cost concentrated in lower-performing teams — related