Implementation study of Chemistry That Applies (2002–2003): SCALE-uP Report No. 2.
Pyke C., Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Szesze, M., & Driver, H. (2004). Washington, DC: George Washington University and Montgomery County Public Schools.
-
examining2,280Students, grade8
Chemistry That Applies Intervention Report - Science
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2012
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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 Chemistry That Applies.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conservation of Matter Assessment |
Chemistry That Applies vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8: Cohort 1;
|
41.68 |
32.71 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Conservation of Matter Assessment |
Chemistry That Applies vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8: Cohort 2;
|
50.22 |
42.73 |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Maryland
-
Race Asian 12% Black 30% White 34% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 10 schools in Montgomery County Public Schools, a large, suburban school district in Maryland. The study population has no ethnic majority and is among the highest performing in Maryland.
Study sample
In this randomized study, researchers created a sampling frame consisting of five profile categories, with approximately seven schools in each category. Each school category has a similar demographic and achievement profile determined by percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, math and reading achievement scores, ethnicity, eligibility for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services, and eligibility for special education services. Two schools were randomly selected from each category to participate in the study. In each category, one school of the matched pair was then randomly chosen to implement the intervention and the other was the comparison school. The study school sample consisted of five schools implementing the intervention and five schools not implementing it. The analysis is based on two cohorts of eighth-grade students that attended the study schools during two consecutive school years. Cohort 1 was formed in the 2001–02 school year and consisted of 1,087 eighth-grade students who received Chemistry That Applies in the five intervention schools and 809 eighth-grade students in the five comparison schools who received a regular science curriculum. Cohort 2 was formed in the 2002–03 school year in the same schools and consisted of 1,121 eighth-grade students who received Chemistry That Applies in the five intervention schools and 1,159 eighth-grade students in the five comparison schools who received a regular science curriculum. Differential attrition rate of students was low for Cohort 2 (3%) and high for Cohort 1 (13%). Because of the high attrition in Cohort 1, the WWC confirmed that baseline equivalence for Cohort 1 intervention and comparison groups was demonstrated. The study reported student outcomes for the two cohorts after seven weeks of program implementation; these findings can be found in Appendix C. Additional findings for subgroups by gender, race/ethnicity, students in the Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) program, those in the ESOL program, and those eligible for Special Education (SPED) can be found in Appendix D.
Intervention Group
The curriculum unit employed by the experimental group was Chemistry That Applies (State of Michigan, 1993). Chemistry That Applies is a middle school science curriculum that received an acceptable rating by Project 2061, a curriculum analysis project funded by the Interagency Educational Research Initiative of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Chemistry That Applies consists of 24 lessons. In this study, teachers were instructed to cover the first 18 lessons only because the topics covered in the last six lessons were not part of the district curriculum and hence not covered in the comparison group. Chemistry That Applies focuses on “guided inquiry” with hands-on, student-centered material. Working in large and small groups, students explore chemical reactions, collect data, and use evidence-based arguments to support their claims. Students keep individual science notebooks for analyzing results. Chemistry That Applies provides question prompts (called “Think and Write”) that require students to use critical thinking skills. Complicated vocabulary is kept to a minimum. The unit is implemented over a period of approximately seven weeks.
Comparison Group
Comparison group teachers used regular curriculum materials normally available to Montgomery County Public Schools teachers that addressed the same target benchmarks. The comparison group curriculum comes from a range of sources, including traditional textbooks, Prentice Hall, reform-based NSF-funded materials, and teacher-designed materials. All teachers were exposed to professional development and “reform-based” strategies.
Outcome descriptions
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Conservation of Matter Assessment (COMA). For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
All intervention group eighth-grade science teachers participated in two days of professional development. They also were given a box of lab materials, instructions for implementation, and an unspecified number of follow-up meetings during the school year. All teachers had access to their regular professional development meetings.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–946.
-
Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W. A., Ochsendorf, R. J., & Pyke, C. (2007). Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Council for Exceptional Children, 73(2), 202–223.
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).