Comparison students outperformed TTPS intervention students on the unit test of unit-specific content¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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.
q3 i2 The comparison group scored significantly higher than the intervention group on the teacher-constructed unit test (d = .79). → Bostic et al. 2016
Evidence¶
Bostic et al. 2016¶
Jonathan D. Bostic, Stephen J. Pape, Tim Jacobbe. (2016). Encouraging Sixth-Grade Students' Problem-Solving Performance by Teaching Through Problem Solving. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, Volume 8, Number 3. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1094896
q3 · i2 · causal · r1
One-way ANOVA (after the FCAT covariate proved non-significant) on the 25-point unit test of rates, ratios, and data analysis. The comparison mean was "approximately two points higher" than the intervention group's.
"There was a significant difference in the groups' mean scores on the unit test favoring the comparison group, F(1, 55) = 8.27, p < .005, d = .79"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- After controlling for pretest, TTPS intervention students solved more problems on the posttest than comparison peers — reports the opposite
- First-grade ELL students taught through traditional small-group instruction significantly outperformed IC-JPA-taught students on math achievement when controlling for initial ability — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.