Impacts of Five Expeditionary Learning Middle Schools on Academic Achievement
Nichols-Barrer, Ira; Haimson, Joshua (2013). Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618299
-
examining3,016Students, grades6-8
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Expeditionary Learning)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Math Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Reading Test Scores, Standardized |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
21% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- 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
District of Columbia, New York
-
Race Black 20% Other or unknown 80% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 51% Not Hispanic or Latino 49% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 71% No FRPL 29%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in five Expeditionary Learning charter middle schools in New York City and Washington DC.
Study sample
About half (51%) of students were identified as female. Race and ethnicity were reported as 20 percent Black and 51 percent Hispanic. About one-fifth (19%) were receiving special education services, and about one-fifth (21%) had limited English proficiency. The majority (71%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Expeditionary Learning (EL) model includes a curriculum and professional development services, including ongoing training and coaching, for teachers and school leaders. Students go on "learning expeditions" or case studies of academic topics to conduct research projects, often with the support of teachers from different subjects. These research projects are shared with outside audiences.
Comparison Group
Comparison students were drawn from the local school districts, conducting business as usual.
Support for implementation
EL provides curriculum resources, professional development institutes in the summer and during the school year, and on-site classroom observation and coaching for teachers and school leaders.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Expeditionary Learning (EL))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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
- 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.
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: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Expeditionary Learning)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State Mathematics Test Score |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Reading Test Score |
Expeditionary Learning vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
20% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- 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
District of Columbia, New York
-
Race Black 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 50% Not Hispanic or Latino 50%
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).