Patterns of change in the social-cognitive development of middle school children following a school-based multicultural literature program.
Demetriades-Guyette, A. (2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (05B), 2615. (UMI No. 3052695).
-
examining98Students, grades6-7
Voices Literature and Character Education (Voices LACE) Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Voices Literature and Character Education (Voices LACE).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Relationship maturity (best response score) |
Voices Literature and Character Education (Voices LACE) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 6-7;
|
2.10 |
2.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Relationship maturity (item rating score) |
Voices Literature and Character Education (Voices LACE) vs. None |
Posttest |
Grades 6-7;
|
2.09 |
2.06 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Other or unknown 24%
Study Details
Setting
Both the intervention and comparison scools were part of Cambridge Public Schools, Massachusetts.
Study sample
The study included 100 sixth- and seventh-grade students from five middle schools. About 50% of the sample was female. A higher percentage of minority students were in the intervention group (77%) than in the comparison group (57%). The largest minoirty group in both the intervention (35%) and comparison conditions (20%) defined themselves as multiracial. The second largest minority group was African-American students in the intervention group (14%) and Asian students in the comparison group (13%).
Intervention Group
The program consisted of a 12-week literature-based curriculum. The program was co-taught by the regular classroom teachers and a staff developer from the Cambridge Youth Guidance Center.
Comparison Group
The comparison schools were drawn from the same school districts as the intervention schools and were matched on demographic characteristics. Comparison schools did not implement the Voices Literature and Character Education Program but intended to implement the program after the end of the study.
Outcome descriptions
The study investigated student outcomes in the knowledge, attitudes, and values domain using the GSID Relationship Questionnaire (REL-Q). This student survey included five subscales measuring interpersonal understanding and interpersonal skills. (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of the outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Teachers participated in a three-day training prior to program implementation.
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).