EngageME P.L.E.A.S.E impact study results [Middle school].
Program Evaluation Group, College of Education, University of Georgia. (2015). Athens, GA: Author. .
-
examining7,859Students, grades6-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Learning Management System)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT): Mathematics subtest |
Learning Management System vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT): English Language Arts (ELA) subtest |
Learning Management System vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
2% Minority -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Georgia
-
Race Asian 9% Black 3% Native American 0% Pacific Islander 0% White 73% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in Forsyth County Schools, a district in the suburbs north of Atlanta, Georgia. Eight of the nine middle schools in the district participated in the study.
Study sample
The sample characteristics differed slightly by outcome measure. For the ELA measure: the intervention group was 48% female while the comparison group was 51% female. The intervention group was 32% sixth-graders, 36% seventh-graders, and 33% eighth-graders while the comparison group was 34% sixth-graders, 34% seventh-graders, and 33% eighth-graders. The intervention group was 76% white, 11% Asian, 2% black, 8% Hispanic, 0.30% Indian, 2% mixed race, and 0.03% Pacific Islander while the comparison group was 70% white, 8% Asian, 3% black, 15% Hispanic, 0.4% Indian, 3% mixed, and 0.1% Pacific Islander. The intervention group and comparison groups were both 7% high needs students. For the math measure: the intervention group was 49% female while the comparison group was 51% female. The intervention group was 31% sixth-graders, 36% seventh-graders, and 33% eighth-graders while the comparison group was 34% sixth-graders, 34% seventh-graders, and 32% eighth-graders. The intervention group was 76% white, 11% Asian, 2% black, 8% Hispanic, 0.20% Indian, 2% mixed race, and 0.03% Pacific Islander while the comparison group was 70% white, 8% Asian, 3% black, 16% Hispanic, 0.4% Indian, 2% mixed, and 0.1% Pacific Islander. The intervention group was 6% high needs while the comparison group was 7% high needs.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a learning management system with recommendation engine. The recommendation engine suggested resources that teachers could provide students based on a student's previous achievement and learning preferences. The goal of the recommendation engine was to help teachers provide more personalized instruction to students to enrich their learning. During year three, teachers received professional development focusing on making their instruction more personalized to student needs. The learning management system with recommendation engine was developed in year three and four of the study and its impact was measured in year four. The recommendation engine was not available until February 2014 (year 4), only two to three months prior to the state-mandated tests (post-tests) in April and May of that year. Many instructors reported that they had not implemented the intervention with their classes because they had been focused on preparing their students for the upcoming tests.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was identical to the intervention condition (i.e., the teachers had access to the learning management system) except that teachers did not have access to the recommendation engine nor did they have training on its use until after the post-test.
Support for implementation
Teachers were given professional development on giving students more personalized instruction in the year before the learning management system was implemented. Fidelity of program implementation was measured by the Program Evaluation Group at the University of Georgia. The Program Evaluation Group determined whether each school integrated the learning management system, trained the professional development trainers, provided professional development, and supported implementation at the school and the district level.
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).