eMINTS 2009 Program Evaluation Report: An analysis of the persistence of program impact on student achievement.
Martin, W., Strother, S., & Reitzes, T. (2009). New York: Center for Children & Technology. Retrieved from http://www.emints.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/eMINTS-2009-Program-Evaluation.pdf.
-
examining1,166Students, grades4-5
eMINTS Comprehensive Program Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Mathematics scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5 students assigned 2 years of exposure;
|
670.22 |
669.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Mathematics scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4 students assigned 2 years of exposure;
|
648.36 |
651.17 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Communication arts scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5 students assigned 2 years of exposure;
|
680.51 |
674.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Communication arts scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4 students assigned 2 years of exposure;
|
659.29 |
663.89 |
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: 47%
Male: 53% -
- 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
Missouri
-
Race Other or unknown 16% White 84%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 35 schools across 10 school districts in Missouri.
Study sample
The study sample in 4th grade included 640 students (328 and 312 in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively). The study sample in 5th grade included 526 students (206 and 320 in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively). The authors do not report the number of teachers and classrooms in the study. Forty-seven percent of the students were female, 16% were students the authors described as belonging to a minority group, and 28% were eligible for the free- or reduced-price meal program.
Intervention Group
The eMINTS Comprehensive Program aims to help teachers improve their practice and the outcomes of their students by offering structured professional development, coaching, and support for integrating technology into the classroom. The program’s goals include supporting teachers in using classroom technology to implement high-quality, inquiry-based learning, in which students develop understanding and knowledge of content matter by engaging in meaningful investigations that require reasoning, judgement, and decision making. The intervention can provide support to teachers in any subject area, including math, literacy, and science. Over 2 school years, teachers in the intervention group were offered the eMINTS program with 250 hours of professional development and support, including 10 to 12 classroom coaching visits each year by eMINTS instructional specialists. Technology coordinators in each school were trained by eMINTS to support teachers’ integration of technology in the classroom.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not receive training by eMINTS. Teachers may have received other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Support for implementation
The eMINTS professional development was implemented by eMINTS instructional specialists. The study authors conducted an implementation study and found that eMINTS was implemented with a high degree of fidelity based on observations of professional development sessions, records of classroom visits, and reviews of teacher artifacts.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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.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).