Mac Iver, Martha Abele; Mac Iver, Douglas J. (2015). Baltimore Education Research Consortium. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570654
Reviewed: January 2017
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Maryland School Assessment-Math |
VEX robotics vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
2012 Cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Maryland School Assessment-Math |
VEX robotics vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
2013 Cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study occurred in Baltimore, Maryland middle schools. Although originally intended to be delivered on local college campuses, the program was (in all cases but 1) delivered in middle schools: 9 in 2012 and 10 in 2013. The one college delivery site was employed in 2013.
A majority of students, across both conditions, identified as male (73%). Most students also indicated that they received free-or-reduced-price lunch benefits (83%). A small minority of students were placed into a special education program (16%). The program recruited students who had scored "basic" in math on the state standardized test, so most participating students were low achievers in math.
This study evaluated the VEX Robotics summer program implemented within Baltimore city middle schools. "The five-week summer program offered in 2012, 2013 and 2014 consisted of half-day of instruction in mathematics and science and half-day enrichment activities. The robotics workshops taught students the fundamentals of building robots and providing time for teams to build their own robots and participate in competitions" (pg. 1). Recruited teachers taught the courses and received professional development sessions in the weeks prior to the start of the summer program. A primary program goal was to improve teacher instruction through these professional development sessions. The professional development sessions were designed to equip teachers to help "students in the development of fact fluency and automaticity" (pg. 5) as well as Common Core standards and emphasizing mathematical problem solving.
Comparison students did not attend the summer school program.
Teachers of the program attended professional development sessions the week before the start of the program. After the introductory session, teachers attended sessions specific to either science or math instruction. A subset of these teachers also attended professional development sessions focused on robotics. Individual and group planning time was included as part of the professional development week.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube