Treatment classrooms used technology far more intensively than control classrooms, whose technology use remained supplemental¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? 89.5% of treatment teachers versus 10.7% of control teachers reported students used technology at least half of class time (t = 10.0, p < .0001). → Nicole Shechtman 2019
Evidence¶
Nicole Shechtman 2019¶
Nicole Shechtman, Jeremy Roschelle, Mingyu Feng, Corinne Singleton. (2019). An Efficacy Study of a Digital Core Curriculum for Grade 5 Mathematics. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419850482
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Exploratory RQ3 descriptive analysis of end-of-year teacher survey self-reports in both experimental groups (response rates 97.4% and 84.8%). Treatment classrooms used technology markedly more; 60.7% of control teachers reported students used technology 26% to 50% of the time, so control technology use was "clearly supplemental."
"On the survey, in response to the question about how much their students used technology in a regular week of math class, 89.5% of treatment teachers and 10.7% of control teachers indicated students used technology for at least half the class time, respectively (t = 10.0, p < .0001)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Assigning schools to use RM-CC5 as their core Grade 5 mathematics curriculum for a full year did not significantly change state assessment achievement compared with business-as-usual schools — related
- Treatment students substantively engaged with RM-CC5 across the school year and all treatment schools met the program's implementation intensity benchmarks, though engagement varied widely between schools and students — related
- RM-CC5 treatment teachers shifted toward one-on-one instruction with individual students, while control teachers led more whole-group and small-group instruction — related
- Most Chicago public school students use technology infrequently and for a narrow range of low-level activities — reports the opposite
- RM-CC5 usage metrics correlated positively with achievement, and together accounted for an additional 7.3% of variance in Grade 5 scores beyond prior achievement, though causality and relative contributions could not be inferred — related
- Achievement effects accumulated over a third year in schools implementing personalized learning since 2012 or earlier, though not purely additively — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rm-cc5-treatment-higher-technology-use |
title |
Treatment classrooms used technology far more intensively than control classrooms, whose technology use remained supplemental |
description |
Treatment classrooms used technology far more intensively than control classrooms, whose technology use remained supplemental |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — nicole-shechtman-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.