STEM Learning Opportunities Providing Equity (SLOPE): An Investing in Innovation (i3) Grant. Final Evaluation Report
Gallagher, Carole; Huang, Kevin; Van Matre, Joseph (2015). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565472
-
examining2,225Students, grade8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Learning Opportunities Providing Equity (SLOPE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California's State Standardized Assessment in Mathematics |
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Learning Opportunities Providing Equity (SLOPE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
320.40 |
325.55 |
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.
-
- 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
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 15 public school districts in California that were representative of the state geographically and demographically. Seventy grade 8 Algebra I teachers were assigned 50/50 to conditions.
Study sample
Student characteristics were not reported in the study. All students were in 8th grade Algebra at the start of the study and were from diverse regions across California. The authors state that the school districts were geographically and demographically representative.
Intervention Group
The primary intervention was an Algebra I program that consisted of three STEM-oriented project-based units that were integrated into the districts' normal mathematics curriculum. The units were: Puzzle Cube, Air Traffic Control, and Catapult Game. The units required students to work in small groups and apply mathematical concepts to build project-based tools. The three units were expected to take about 40 class periods. Students who were assigned to intervention teachers' classrooms and who scored below proficient on their 7th grade state math tests were also offered a summer program between the 7th and 8th grade with a similar focus. The summer program involved three project-based units that required problem solving and reinforced math concepts needed for Algebra I.
Comparison Group
The comparison teachers did not have access to the project materials and were expected to deliver the usual district Algebra curriculum. Students in comparison teachers' classrooms did not have access to the summer program.
Support for implementation
Teachers assigned to the intervention condition were required to attend professional development and coaching sessions. The PD and coaching focused on implementing the three project-based units as designed and reinforced instructional strategies. During the test year, support for implementation included weekly coaching and collaborative meetings.
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).