Evaluation of the We the People Program: Student Knowledge
Owen, D. (2018). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
-
examining1,015Students, grades9-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2019
- Grant Competition (findings for We the People)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Political Knowledge Test (Owen, 2018) |
We the People vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.68 |
12.44 |
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.
-
- 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
Indiana
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in civics, social studies, and American government classes in 12 public and private high schools throughout the state of Indiana. Two of the high schools were Title I schools serving high-need populations.
Study sample
Descriptive statistics are provided for neither the teachers nor the students in the sample.
Intervention Group
This study examines the effectiveness of the "We the People" (WTP) teacher professional development program and social studies curriculum on high school student acquisition of knowledge of civics and American government. The professional development intervention was administered through training institutes, workshops, and seminars. The intervention began with a multi-day summer institute where teachers interact with law, history, and political science scholars who are responsible for conveying high level content related to one or more of the essential questions and demonstrating effective pedagogy. In addition, participants interact with mentors, master teachers familiar with both the content and the pedagogy of the We the People curriculum. The mentor teachers are responsible for helping teacher participants master the content and understand how best to implement the program content in their classroom. The intervention also provides pedagogy sessions delivered by mentor teachers and university and college social studies methods professors that demonstrate “best practices,” including written argument development, Socratic questioning, interactive teaching strategies, primary document analysis, and critical reading of non-fiction sources. The final component of the professional development intervention focuses on assessment. In small groups of 4-6 teachers, and guided by mentor teachers, participants prepare written statements answering congressional hearing questions designed to complement the six units in the "We the People" textbook. The teacher participants are assessed based on: 1) their understanding of the basic issues involved in the question; 2) their knowledge of constitutional history and principles; 3) their use of sound reasoning to support their positions; 4) their use of historical or contemporary evidence and examples to support their positions; 5) the extent to which they answered the question asked; and 6) the extent to which most members contributed to the group’s presentation. Students in the intervention condition participated in the WTP curriculum as delivered by their teachers. According to the study author, the "program instructs students in the foundations and institutions of American government...A WTP textbook reflecting the curriculum is available ... As a culminating activity, WTP students take part in simulated congressional hearings. This exercise requires students to use primary source documents, conduct research, and develop succinct, yet complete, answers to probing questions" (p. 1).
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition received business as usual.
Support for implementation
Teachers receive the WTP professional development program through training institutes, workshops, and seminars, and work with master teachers who are familiar with the content and pedagogy of the curriculum. Students receive the WTP curriculum as delivered by their teachers.
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).