Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis

By R. Slavin, Cynthia Lake, Cynthia Groff. 2008

303 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ed704600290559b7dd775631206d92cd4a613e0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Dewi Smith
2. R. Slavin
3. John Dexter Fletcher
4. Paul A. Kirschner
5. Chin-Chung Tsai
6. J. Kulik
7. Cynthia Lake
8. E. Michael Nussbaum

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Cynthia Lake
2. R. Slavin
3. Dewi Smith
4. Martin Bøg
5. Anne-Marie Klint Jørgensen
6. J. Dietrichson
7. T. Filges
8. Paul A. Kirschner

In Statistics and Probability

1. R. Slavin
2. Dewi Smith
3. Cynthia Lake
4. Pam Hanley
5. Allen Thurston
6. Martin Bøg
7. Paul A. Kirschner
8. Anne-Marie Klint Jørgensen

Citations in the corpus

• Motivation and engagement in mathematics: a qualitative framework for teacher-student interactions (2017, unknown): “The CLASS™ was particularly appropriate for our investigation since previous research found teacher-student interactions as most influential on the effectiveness of intervention studies in mathematics (e.g., Confrey 2006; Slavin, Lake, and Groff 2009).”
• Experimental Evaluations of Elementary Science Programs: A Best-Evidence Synthesis (2014, methodology): “Review Methods The review methods for elementary science applied in this paper are similar to those used in math by Slavin and Lake (2008) and Slavin, Lake, and Groff (2009), and in reading by Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, and Davis (2009).”
• Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (2016, background): “…due to Cognitive Tutor (e.g., Corbett et al., 1997), but recent reviews have reported that Cognitive Tutor has little or no consistent effect on student learning (e.g., Slavin et al., 2009 Our analysis also sheds light on an unexpected finding in VanLehn’s (2011) review on tutoring effects.”
• Academic Interventions for Elementary and Middle School Students With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2017, background): “Slavin and Lake (2008), Slavin, Lake, and Groff (2009), and Slavin, Lake, Chambers, et al. (2009) also concluded that there is still a lot to be learned about the design of effective interventions.”
• The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis (2018, background): “According to Slavin, Lake, and Groff (2009), an ES of 0.20 can be considered to be substan-tively important for practice.”
• The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education (2009, methodology): “To examine the relationship between sample size and effect size we used data from two systematic reviews of evaluations of mathematics programs, one of elementary programs by Slavin and Lake (2008) and one of secondary programs by Slavin, Lake, and Groff (2009).”