Effects of the first year of a three-year CGI teacher professional development program on grades 3–5 student achievement: A multisite cluster-randomized trial. (Research Report No. 2018-25)
Schoen, R. C., LaVenia, M., & Tazaz, A. M. (2018). Tallahassee, FL: Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University.
-
examining1,683Students, grades3-5
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized control trial with cluster level inferences and joiners, but it demonstrates baseline equivalence.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Elementary Mathematics Student Assessment (EMSA) |
Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
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
Florida
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
In central and northern Florida, 149 third-fifth grade teachers from 32 public schools (drawn from nine school districts) participated in this study.
Study sample
The study report did not include information about proportion of students who were male vs. female, or information about race/ethnicity of the students in the sample. The authors reported that the study sample was typical of public elementary schools in central and northern Florida, however, the authors did not provide the proportion of students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, or English language learners, or had individual education plans.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the intervention group participated in a professional development program on how to implement Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) in their classrooms to improve mathematics achievement. In grades 3-5, the CGI program focused on two research-based frameworks which help teachers to elicit children's thinking about the structure of a mathematical problem and strategies on how to solve those problems. Teachers learn how to use information about students' reasoning and developmental process to help them understand fractions, fraction operations, whole number multiplication and division, and base ten concepts for whole numbers and decimals. The professional development program occurred for five consecutive 7-hour days in summer 2015, two consecutive 6-hour days in fall 2015, and two consecutive 6-hour days in winter 2015.
Comparison Group
The comparison group implemented business-as-usual practice during the study period, and were invited to participate in the intervention once the study period was completed.
Support for implementation
The CGI professional development program was delivered by certified CGI instructors under the direction of Dr. Linda Levi, who co-authored the CGI curriculum in several books.
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).