A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of An On-Line Formative Assessment and Tutoring System

ASSISTments is a web-based math tutor designed to address the need for timely student assessment while simultaneously providing instruction, thereby avoiding lost instruction time that typically occurs during assessment. This article presents a quasi-experiment that evaluates whether ASSISTments use has an effect on improving middle school students' year-end test scores. The data was collected from 1240 seventh graders in three treatment schools and one comparison school. Post-test (7th grade year-end test) results indicate, after adjusting for the pre-test (6th grade year-end test), that students in the treatment schools significantly outperformed students in the comparison school and the difference was especially present for special education students. A usage analysis reveals that greater student use of ASSISTments is associated with greater learning consistent with the hypothesis that it is useful as a tutoring system. We also found evidence consistent with the hypothesis that teachers adapt their whole class instruction based on overall student performance in ASSISTments. Namely, increased teacher use (i.e., having more students use the system more often) is associated with greater learning among students with little or no use, suggesting that those students may have benefited from teachers adapting their whole-class instruction based on what they learned from ASSISTments use reports. These results indicate potential for using technology to provide students instruction during assessment and to give teachers fast and continuous feedback on student progress.

[1]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Smart machines in education: the coming revolution in educational technology , 2001 .

[2]  Sarah Guckenburg,et al.  Measuring how benchmark assessments affect student achievement , 2007 .

[3]  Fadi P. Deek,et al.  Science and Mathematics to the Special Education Population , 1996 .

[4]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Cognitive tutors as modeling tools and instructional models , 2001 .

[5]  Zachary A. Pardos,et al.  Using Fine-Grained Skill Models to Fit Student Performance with , 2006 .

[6]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Test-Enhanced Learning , 2006, Psychological science.

[7]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Scaffolding vs. Hints in the Assistment System , 2006, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[8]  Murali Mani,et al.  Using Mixed-Effects Modeling to Compare Different Grain-Sized Skill Models , 2006 .

[9]  John Woodward,et al.  A Historical Review of Technology Research in Special Education , 1997 .

[10]  Emily C. Bouck,et al.  Assistive Technology and Mathematics: What is There and Where Can We Go in Special Education , 2009 .

[11]  John W. Alspaugh The Relationship between the Number of Students per Computer and Educational Outcomes , 1999 .

[12]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: A computational model and an intelligent learning environment , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Harold H. Wenglinsky Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. , 1998 .

[14]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Using Instructional Technology in Colleges and Universities: What Controlled Evaluation Studies Say , 2003 .

[15]  D. Berliner Comment: Educational Research:The Hardest Science of All , 2002 .

[16]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[17]  Anthony Petrosino,et al.  A Second Follow-Up Year for "Measuring How Benchmark Assessments Affect Student Achievement." REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 002. , 2008 .

[18]  A. Su,et al.  The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , 1932, The Mathematical Gazette.

[19]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  Assessing Teacher, Classroom, and School Effects, Including Fiscal Effects , 2004 .

[20]  M. Fetler,et al.  High School Staff Characteristics and Mathematics Test Results , 1999 .

[21]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  The Incidence of “Causal” Statements in Teaching-and-Learning Research Journals , 2007 .

[22]  David C. Berliner,et al.  National Board Certified Teachers and Their Students' Achievement , 2004 .

[23]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Can an Intelligent Tutoring System Predict Math Proficiency as Well as a Standarized Test? , 2008, EDM.

[24]  J. Angrist,et al.  New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[25]  Talbot Bielefeldt,et al.  Computers and Student Learning: Interpreting the Multivariate Analysis of PISA 2000. , 2005 .

[26]  Marsha C. Lovett,et al.  IMPLEMENTING A COMPUTERIZED TUTOR IN A STATISTICAL REASONING COURSE: GETTING THE BIG PICTURE , 2002 .

[27]  Mitsuru Ikeda,et al.  Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 2006 .

[28]  Anthony Petrosino,et al.  Measuring How Benchmark Assessments Affect Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 039. , 2007 .

[29]  Ludger Woessmann,et al.  Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[30]  Henry Jay Becker,et al.  Computer Use by Teachers: Are Cuban's Predictions Correct? , 2001 .

[31]  T. Scruggs Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities , 1992 .

[32]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward Supporting Collaborative Discussion in an Ill-Defined Domain , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[33]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[34]  M. Honey,et al.  Perspectives on Technology and Education Research: Lessons from the Past and Present , 2000 .

[35]  G. Bull,et al.  Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 2009 .

[36]  Dave L. Edyburn Critical issues in special education technology research: What do we know? What do we need to know? , 2001 .

[37]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education—What Works? Issues in Synthesizing Educational Program Evaluations , 2008 .

[38]  Robert W. Lucky,et al.  Just right , 1997 .

[39]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort , 2007 .

[40]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  To Tutor or Not to Tutor: That is the Question , 2009, AIED.

[41]  Stuart S. Yeh Class size reduction or rapid formative assessment?. A comparison of cost-effectiveness , 2009 .

[42]  Neil Heffernan,et al.  Which One Is Just Right? What Every Educator Should Know about Formative Assessment Systems. , 2009 .

[43]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes , 2001, CHI.

[44]  John Davis,et al.  Why PT3? An Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology , 2004 .

[45]  Geoffrey D. Borman Experiments for Educational Evaluation and Improvement , 2002, Peabody Journal of Education.

[46]  S. R. Searle,et al.  Population Marginal Means in the Linear Model: An Alternative to Least Squares Means , 1980 .

[47]  Janet Ward Schofield,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom: The Impact of a Computer-Based Tutor on Teachers and Students , 1990 .

[48]  S. Guerrero,et al.  Technology in Support of Middle Grade Mathematics: What Have We Learned?. , 2004 .

[49]  Samy S. Abu-Naser Evaluating the Effectiveness of the CPP-Tutor, an Intelligent Tutoring System for Students Learning to Program in C++ , 2009 .

[50]  John Schacter,et al.  Does Computer Technology Improve Student Learning and Achievement? How, When, and under What Conditions? , 1999 .

[51]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Predicting State Test Scores Better with Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Developing Metrics to Measure Assistance Required , 2006, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[52]  최영한,et al.  미국 NCTM의 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics에 나타난 수학과 교수,학습의 이론 , 2002 .