The Effect of an Analysis-of-Practice, Videocase-Based, Teacher Professional Development Program on Elementary Students' Science Achievement
Taylor, Joseph A.; Roth, Kathleen; Wilson, Christopher D.; Stuhlsatz, Molly A. M.; Tipton, Elizabeth (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n2 p241-271. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135795
-
examining2,823Students, grades4-5
Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA) Intervention Report - Science
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2021
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed science content knowledge test |
Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
56.28 |
50.17 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Colorado
-
Race Asian 2% Black 4% Other or unknown 35% White 59% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 28% Not Hispanic or Latino 72%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place during science instruction in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in 77 public elementary schools in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Colorado. The sample consisted of traditional public schools and excluded charter and magnet schools. The study authors did not specify the number of districts.
Study sample
The study sample included 2,823 students (1,485 in the intervention group and 1,338 in the comparison group) in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in the participating schools. In the participating schools, 52% of students were male, 59% of the students were White, 4% were Black, 2% were Asian, and 28% were Hispanic, on average. Twelve percent of students in the participating schools had limited English proficiency, and 43% qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, on average.
Intervention Group
Science Teachers Learning through Lesson Analysis (STeLLA®) is a professional development program, developed by BSCS Science Learning, that aims to improve students’ science achievement by improving teachers’ science content knowledge and their abilities to (a) explain science concepts to students, (b) clearly identify to students the science concepts used in student learning activities, and (c) engage students in thinking about science. Over the course of 1 school year, teachers in the intervention group participated in the STeLLA® professional development program, starting with a 2-week summer institute (approximately 60 hours), followed by eight once-monthly meetings during the school year in school-based study groups (approximately 30 hours). Teachers focused on two science topics that they would teach in their own classrooms in the upcoming school year: “the earth’s changing surface” and “food webs” for fourth-grade teachers, and “matter and molecules in the water cycle” and “the sun’s effect on climate/seasons” for fifth-grade teachers. In the summer institute, teachers alternated half-day sessions on developing science content knowledge, led by postsecondary science faculty, with half-day sessions led by STeLLA® professional development staff in which they became familiar with STeLLA® lesson plans and teaching strategies and analyzed videorecordings of experienced teachers delivering model lesson plans. During the school year, teachers videorecorded themselves delivering lesson plans (program-provided or developed with their study group) and participated in monthly 3- to 4-hour school-based study group sessions facilitated by a STeLLA® professional development leader to analyze one another’s instruction.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group participated in a 1-year professional development program focused on developing science content knowledge in the same two topic areas as the intervention group: “the earth’s changing surface” and “food webs” for fourth-grade teachers and “matter and molecules in the water cycle” and “the sun’s effect on climate/seasons” for fifth-grade teachers. The program began with a 2-week summer institute (approximately 60 hours), followed by five 6-hour meetings during the school year (30 hours total). Postsecondary science faculty led both the summer institute and school-year sessions. In contrast to teachers in the intervention group, teachers in the comparison group did not receive training or support from STeLLA® professional development leaders. Teachers in the comparison group also did not receive STeLLA® lesson plans, learn about instructional strategies, nor participate in analysis of videorecorded science instruction.
Support for implementation
An external evaluator conducted an implementation study and gave similar ratings to the professional development provided to the intervention and comparison groups. The ratings were for the following indicators: effectiveness of the professional development provider, pacing of the sessions, teacher engagement, and collaboration among teachers. Observers rated the STeLLA® intervention group as spending more time on pedagogical issues and lesson analysis, and less time on science content, than the comparison group.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Roth, Kathleen J.; Wilson, Christopher D.; Taylor, Joseph A.; Stuhlsatz, Molly A. M.; Hvidsten, Connie. (2019). Comparing the Effects of Analysis-of-Practice and Content-Based Professional Development on Teacher and Student Outcomes in Science. American Educational Research Journal, v56 n4 p1217-1253.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Combined Achievement Test |
Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
56.28 |
50.17 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Colorado
-
Race Asian 2% Black 4% White 59% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 28% Not Hispanic or Latino 72%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in over 70 traditional elementary schools located in Colorado. All consenting fourth and fifth grade teachers in each school were included.
Study sample
School level demographics reported that intervention schools included 48% females, 12% ELL students, 44% free/reduced priced lunch status, 2% Asian, 5% Black, 28% Hispanic, and 59% White. 43% of the schools were considered urban, 40% suburban, and 17% rural. School level demographics reported that comparison schools included 48% females, 13% ELL students, 41% free/reduced priced lunch status, 3% Asian, 3% Black, 28% Hispanic, and 59% White. 63% of the schools were considered urban, 23% suburban, and 14% rural.
Intervention Group
STeLLA is a program for elementary teachers and it uses video-based analysis to support teachers' learning about science content and effective teaching. The program aims to improve teacher effectiveness and in turn increase student achievement. Teachers in the intervention group received specific PD that was focused on learning goals for teachers. The STeLLA program includes four types of knowledge and abilities that help focus these learning goals. Teachers are supported and increase their knowledge in science content in order to better instruct their students. Teaches also learn how to analyze their own teaching using a lesson analysis procedure they are taught. Teachers use video clips for this procedure. Teachers begin learning this process during a summer institute then continue to follow a protocol during the academic year. Teachers also participate in study groups during the year with other teachers. Teachers receive support from STeLLA leaders throughout the year, but are expected to gain more independence throughout the year.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group did not receive the STeLLA professional development. Instead these teachers participated in the Content Deepening Program, which is another science focused PD program. This program focuses on deepening science content knowledge for teachers in fourth and fifth grade. These teachers did not experience or participate in any analysis procedures during the year. Teachers did participate in a summer institute for this program and they also received support throughout the year.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the study participated in summer institute trainings and received support throughout the academic year.
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).