A Randomized Controlled Trial of Professional Development for Interdisciplinary Civic Education: Impacts on Humanities Teachers and Their Students
Barr, Dennis J.; Boulay, Beth; Selman, Robert L.; McCormick, Rachel; Lowenstein, Ethan; Gamse, Beth; Fine, Melinda; Leonard, M. Brielle (2015). Teachers College Record, v117 n2. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1047843
-
examining113Teachers
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for (Not applicable))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements.
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Interdisciplinary civics education professional development)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Professional Support, Engagement & Growth |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.25 |
3.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Personal Accomplishment |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
5.28 |
4.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Depersonalization |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.82 |
0.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Emotional Exhaustion |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.88 |
2.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Learner Centered Learning |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.22 |
3.81 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Civic Literacy |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.13 |
3.78 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Community Centered Learning |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.24 |
3.81 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Deliberation |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.21 |
3.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Historical Understanding |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.20 |
3.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Personal Teaching Efficacy (Character Ed) |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.24 |
3.95 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Knowledge Centered Learning |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.24 |
3.95 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Tolerance and Psycho-Social Development |
Interdisciplinary civics education professional development vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.22 |
3.77 |
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.
-
- 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
California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee
-
Race White 81%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in schools that are located in proximity to eight Facing History regional offices in the US: Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Nashville/Memphis, New England, New York/New Jersey, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Schools that had no exposure or very limited previous exposure to Facing History were recruited to participate in the study.
Study sample
Schools: Among the 62 schools present at follow-up, 69% of schools in the study sample were district public schools, 23% were other types of public schools (e.g., charter schools), and 8% were private schools. Average enrollment was 1,014 students (with actual enrollment ranging from 87 to 4,000 students). 66% were underperforming schools based on federal criteria (i.e. did not meet Annual Yearly Progress for 2 consecutive years). 25% had 90% or more of the students eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL). 60% had 40%–89% of students eligible for FRPL. Teachers: Among the analytic sample of 113, average experience was 8.49 years (ranging from 1 to 34); more than 75% of the sample had 12 or more years of experience. The average years teaching at one’s current institution was 4.38. 61% had at least a master’s degree, 81% were white. 67% taught history, 22% taught English language arts, and 11% taught other types of humanities classes. Students: Among the analytic sample for most of the student outcomes (i.e. those who completed survey Book 1), two thirds were 10th graders. 60% were female. Students self-identified as Hispanic (36%), White (32%), Black (13%), Asian (13%), and Other (6%). 71% had English as their first language. Among the remaining 29%, 75% of these students indicated Spanish as their first language and the remaining 25% reported Chinese, Vietnamese, or Tagalog, among others. Slightly less than half of both mothers and fathers of students had completed high school or less.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the intervention condition participated in Facing History summer professional development and traditional school year follow-up services in year 1 (2007-08). They attended a Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior professional development seminar during the summer or fall of 2007 and implemented the program during the 2007–2008 school year, during which they received follow-up support from Facing History staff as they developed their lesson plans and implemented their units. Seminars are typically five days long (35–40 hours) and allow participants to explore the content, themes, practices, and resources of the program and to learn how to apply them in their classrooms. Teachers were also provided with a classroom set of the resource book, Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior, and access to the program’s print and digital resources, including unit outlines and historical content.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the control condition were to participate in Facing History professional development and and receive follow-up services in year 2 (2008-09). In year 1, these control group teachers received no services and continued to use the standard practices for history and language arts courses in their districts.
Support for implementation
Program staff members provide at least one hour-long initial follow-up meeting to help teachers plan their implementation. Additional ongoing coaching, print and digital resources, modeling of lessons, and guest speakers were provided upon request to help teachers refine implementation and address challenges.
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).