Claims

Treatment teachers generally liked the revisions to CMP2 visuals, especially increased color coding and labeling, and liked the revisions at least as much as control teachers liked the originals

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Treatment teachers generally approved of the visual revisions, with strongest approval for increased color coding and labeling, and were less enthusiastic but still supportive of removing representational visuals. → Clinton 2015

Evidence

Clinton 2015

Clinton, V. & Cooper, J.L. (2015, April). Teacher Viewpoints of Instructional Design Principles for Visuals in a Middle School Math Curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574965

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Survey of treatment teachers in the RCT (22 of 59 responded), rating the changes made to visuals in the revised books on a 1-7 Likert scale (Figure 1). Descriptive findings; no effect size printed.

"Treatment teachers generally liked the revisions, especially the increased use of color coding and labeling (see Figure 1). Treatment teachers appeared to generally approve of the removal of decorative visuals. They were less enthusiastic, but still generally supportive, of the removal of representational visuals."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.