CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning.

Steenbergen-Hu, Saiying, Cooper, Harris·2013·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0032447
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this study, we meta-analyzed empirical research of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. A total of 26 reports containing 34 independent samples met study inclusion criteria. The reports appeared between 1997 and 2010. The majority of included studies compared the effectiveness of ITS with that of regular classroom instruction. A few studies compared ITS with human tutoring or homework practices. Among the major findings are (a) overall, ITS had no negative and perhaps a small positive effect on K–12 students’ mathematical learning, as indicated by the average effect sizes ranging from g = 0.01 to g = 0.09, and (b) on the basis of the few studies that compared ITS with homework or human tutoring, the effectiveness of ITS appeared to be small to modest. Moderator analyses revealed 2 findings of practical importance. First, the effects of ITS appeared to be greater when the interventions lasted for less than a school year than when they lasted for 1 school year or longer. Second, the effectiveness of ITS for helping students drawn from the general population was greater than for helping low achievers. This finding draws attentions to the issue of whether computerized learning might contribute to the achievement gap between students with different achievement levels and aptitudes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032447

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-11
Volume
105
Issue
4
Pages
970-987
ISSN
  • 1939-2176
  • 0022-0663
DOI
10.1037/a0032447
Cited by
175
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review