vPLC-augmented ASSISTments did not significantly improve overall middle school math achievement relative to a virtual comparison group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-17 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? On average, treatment students scored 0.67 points higher than their virtual comparison group, a difference that was not statistically significant at the .05 level (p = 0.172). → Huang 2025

Evidence¶

Huang 2025¶

Huang, C.-W., Feng, M., & Li, L. (2025). Applying a partially nested regression model to evaluate the impact of ASSISTments on middle school students' math achievement. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED677665

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Quasi-experimental matched-comparison analysis of 2,855 treatment students in grades 6–8 across 36 schools in 24 states, compared with a matched virtual comparison group on MAP Growth posttest scores using a partially nested model. The article reports "this difference is not statistically significant at the .05 level"; Table 3 lists ES = 0.04.

"the treatment impact was estimated to be 0.67 (the coefficient associated with "treat"), indicating that, on average, the treatment group scored 0.67 points higher than its VCG. However, this difference is not statistically significant at the .05 level, with the p-value equal to 0.172"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A small set of mathematics-only studies gives existence proof that teacher participation in a mathematics PLC can enhance student learning, but evidence is insufficient to link formal assessment results to PLC participation — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Across the full sample, students receiving the ASSISTments intervention performed comparably to their virtual comparison peers on end-of-year MAP Growth — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The vPLC-augmented ASSISTments treatment sample comprised 59 teachers and 2,855 students in grades 6-8 from 36 public schools across 24 U.S. states, half in rural areas — related
• Low-performing students (below the 50th pretest percentile) showed significant improvement with vPLC-augmented ASSISTments — related
• A virtual comparison group matched on pretest, locale, FRL, and test dates achieved baseline equivalence with the treatment group (effect size = -0.03) — related
• Rural students overall did not show a significant effect, but low-performing rural students did — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students with lower baseline performance (below the 50th percentile) showed significantly greater math achievement gains with ASSISTments than matched virtual peers — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Schools using the ASSISTment formative assessment platform significantly outperformed matched schools on the state mathematics test — related
• In the full-sample analysis, baseline demographic and prior-achievement differences between treatment and matched comparison groups were minimal, with effect sizes below the WWC threshold — related
• Coaching effects do not differ significantly across school levels, and in-person versus virtual delivery shows no significant difference — related
• Rural students in the 2nd baseline achievement quartile significantly outperformed their comparison peers by 1.53 points — related
• Catapult Learning Wraparound SES significantly improves middle school math achievement (ES +0.21) — related
• Achievement-quartile analysis shows the intervention was most effective for students in the 2nd quartile (25th–50th percentiles) of baseline achievement — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Early trends suggest students of teachers using ASSISTments as the sole math edtech tool may have benefited more than students where it was part of a suite of tools — related
• Impacts varied across teachers: 40 of 59 teachers had a majority of their students outperform their virtual comparison counterparts — related