Impact of achievement of a five-year intensive professional development program in elementary science.
Nedley, S. (2016). Pittsburgh, PA: ASSET STEM Education. Retrieved from https://assetinc.org/.
-
examining41Schools, grade4
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Achieving Student Success through Excellence in Teaching (ASSET))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) Science |
Achieving Student Success through Excellence in Teaching (ASSET) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 4;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) Science |
Achieving Student Success through Excellence in Teaching (ASSET) vs. Other professional development |
3 Years |
Grade: 4;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
Rural
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study took place among 69 schools in rural and high-needs schools in Pennsylvania.
Study sample
No data were provided regarding sample characteristics of the students in the study. However, the schools in the study were identified as high-need and/or rural based on the following criteria: (1) at least 40% of students receive free/reduced lunch, (2) the school is a Title I-eligible Race to the the Top Turnaround school that met established benchmarks for poor academic performance, or (3) the school was designated Rural or Rural Low-Income based on federal guidelines.
Intervention Group
Schools in the intervention condition participated in the ASSET (Achieving Student Success through Excellence in Teaching) Advanced Professional Development model. This model includes a number of components aimed at increasing K-6 teachers' preparedness to deliver high-quality instruction in science, as well as improving schools' capacity to support this instruction. The intervention condition in the current study implemented two Professional Development services through ASSET. The services were: (1) development of a professional learning community school culture through 3 years of a 3 consecutive day Leadership Academy, and (2) comprehensive professional development to increase teacher's content knowledge and self-efficacy in science, through 4 years of a 1-day Content Enrichment session.
Comparison Group
There were two comparison groups in the study. The key differences between the two comparison groups concern the schools' prior professional development in science. Comparison group 1 consisted of schools that had not participated in the intervention or any other statewide science initiatives, while comparison group 2 were not currently participating in the Advanced Professional Development provided by the i3 grant, but may have participated in other professional development offerings of ASSET.
Support for implementation
The intervention includes coaching support, and support for schools in building leadership and professional learning communities in science. No other implementation support is described.
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).