Stephens, A. D. (2003). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3084814).
Reviewed: February 2018
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 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Certification.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT): Achievement Scores Math |
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Certification vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4;
|
421.66 |
421.51 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study took place in elementary school grades 4 and 5 in two large school districts in South Carolina. One district was described as a suburban district with a total population of 14,759 students across 36 schools. The second district contained urban, suburban, and rural schools with a total of 42,446 students across 85 schools.
This study individually matched each of eight teachers with NBPTS certification to a teacher without certification. Four of the NBPTS-certified teachers taught students in grade 4 and four in grade 5. Individual teachers were matched on the prior year’s mathematics achievement of their current students in the instructional year, as well as within a range of the school-level poverty index. Intervention and comparison group teachers were chosen from within each of the participating school districts. The analytic sample includes 72 students taught by the four NBPTS-certified teachers, and 81 students taught by the four comparison teachers. The race, gender, and free and reduced-price lunch status of students were not reported. Across all matches, the poverty level ranged from 14.2 to 98.5. The author presented separate comparisons for each NBPTS-certified teacher. Each of these contrasts has a confounding factor since the intervention condition was delivered by a single teacher. An author query was sent to see if aggregate findings were available. The author did not have aggregated findings, so the WWC aggregated the four contrasts for each grade and used these aggregated findings as the contrasts of interest for this review.
The intervention condition was receiving 1 year of instruction in math during the 2001–02 school year by a teacher with NBPTS certification. Each teacher had at least 3 years of experience.
The intervention condition was receiving 1 year of instruction in math during the 2001–02 school year by a teacher without NBPTS certification. Each teacher had at least 3 years of experience.
The state of South Carolina provided a $7,500 bonus for NBPTS certification. The two participating school districts provided salary stipends and/or compensation to teachers achieving NBPTS certification; no details on these incentives were provided in the study.
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