Brandt, C., Meyers, C., & Molefe, A. (2013). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Reviewed: February 2020
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for eMINTS Comprehensive Program.
Reviewed: February 2018
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MAP Communication Arts |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MAP Mathematics |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in rural high-poverty middle schools in Missouri with seventh and eighth grade students. To qualify to apply for participation, schools had to meet requirements under Title I (school-wide or targeted) or Missouri's historical requirements for Title II.D (50% of students in poverty) and be part of the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program in the state.
Target students were in the seventh or eighth grade. 4.5% of the intervention students were nonwhite vs. 6.6% of the control students; 4.2% and 4.6%, respectively, were English-language learners. Over half of the students in both schools were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Of the 60 schools, 30 serve grades PK–8 or grades K–8, 8 serve grades 6–8 or grades 7–8, and the remaining 22 serve grades 6–12 or grades 7–12. Enrollment in both groups was less than 200 students, reflecting the small and rural aspects of the sample schools. eMINTS schools, however, enrolled 50 more students than control schools did, and the between-group difference in enrollment was statistically significant. Across both groups, about 5% of students were minorities, 58% qualified for free or reduced-priced lunch, less than 2% were English language learners, and between 12-13% had an identified disability. Teachers in eMINTS schools averaged almost 1 year more of experience than their control counterparts (11.9 versus 11.0), but 2% more teachers in control schools had a master’s degree.
The overall goal of eMINTS Comprehensive is to help teachers develop student-centered, purposeful instruction fostered by technology utilization. The program includes a specific set of school and classroom technology equipment, intensive on-site professional development, online and face-to-face professional learning communities, and job-embedded coaching to enhance teachers’ classroom practices. Program classrooms must have minimum software and hardware equipment, including an interactive whiteboard, computers for the teacher and each student, internet connectivity, printer/scanner, and a camera. During the first year of professional development, teachers receive 126 hours of formal professional development in 26 sessions that are held throughout the school year. Sessions typically take place in an eMINTS classroom or computer lab in a central location and last between 4 and 6.5 hours each. The first-year curriculum focuses on basic technology applications, understanding constructivist pedagogy, community-building strategies (including interaction and interdependence), inquiry-based learning strategies, technology integration, and introducing authentic learning experiences into the classroom. At the end of the first year, teachers spend up to 12 additional hours developing a classroom website with the help of the instructional specialist. In addition, teachers received up to 10 coaching visits and had online access to the curriculum and PD materials.
The comparison schools were placed on a wait-list to receive the program after the evaluation study was completed. During the evaluation study, comparison schools were presumably implementing typical middle school curricula and professional development activities for their students and faculty.
A thorough implementation study was conducted as part of the evaluation and found that implementation was successful. The essential resources, professional development, and guidance needed to support the eMINTS program at the district, school, and classroom levels were provided by eMINTS staff. eMINTS staff conducted technology audits in all treatment schools to identify areas of equipment need. They also followed up with the necessary resources and support to ensure that all schools met minimum infrastructure and equipment requirements within the expected timeframe. Teacher, administrator, and technology coordinator professional development, which included formal professional development sessions, school visits, and coaching sessions, were offered to all eligible participants in all treatment schools. eMINTS professional development was scheduled and conducted in a timely fashion.
Reviewed: August 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Reviewed: February 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Reviewed: November 2012
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
21st Century Skills |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
End of 1st year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Communication Arts |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
End of 1st year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student engagement |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
End of 1st year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
End of 1st year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 95% |
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube