The implementation and effects of the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC): Early findings in eighth-grade history/social studies and science courses (CRESST Report 848)
Herman, J. L., Epstein, S., Leon, S., Dai, Y., La Torre Matrundola, D., Reber, S., & Choi, K. (2015). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from http://cresst.org/wp-content/uploads/R848.pdf. [Kentucky matched comparison QED].
-
examining19,962Students, grade8
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2021
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) Reading |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 8;
|
0.16 |
0.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) Writing |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kentucky Performance Rating for Educational Progress (K-PREP) Social Studies |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 8;
|
0.09 |
0.10 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
0% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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
Kentucky
-
Race Asian 1% Black 4% Other or unknown 3% White 92% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Not Hispanic or Latino 98%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in grade 8 history and science classrooms in Kentucky. Other details about the setting, such as the numbers of districts and schools, are not provided in the study.
Study sample
The study included 16,149 students for the reading outcome, 13,972 students for the writing outcome, and 19,962 students for the social studies outcome. The intervention condition included 36 teachers of history or science. The comparison conditions included students linked to 598 teachers for the reading outcome and 754 teachers for the social studies outcome. The number of comparison teachers used for the writing outcome was not reported. Approximately 2% of students were Hispanic or Latino, 92% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 1% were non-Hispanic Asian. Approximately half the students were male, 0.3% were English learners, 47% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 9% were eligible for special education.
Intervention Group
Literacy Design Collaborative aims to help teachers improve their effectiveness in the classroom with a focus on supporting their literacy instruction. Literacy Design Collaborative provides professional development, coaching, and resources to support teachers to work collaboratively in their schools to create and use high-quality literacy instruction materials aimed at improving students’ reading, research, and writing skills. Teachers across content areas—including English language arts, social studies, and science—can use the Literacy Design Collaborative program. Prior to the study year, intervention teachers had implemented the Literacy Design Collaborative program in their classroom for 1 or 2 years. During the study year, teachers were expected to participate in regularly scheduled collaborative planning time in a professional learning community and implement at least two 2- to 4-week literacy modules during the school year. Teachers were also expected to participate in two or three of the following types of professional development activities: classroom observations, coaching sessions, online courses, or meetings. Teachers may have participated in some of these activities during the professional learning community planning time. Although 73% of the 36 intervention teachers participated in regularly scheduled collaborative planning time, only 26% of the teachers did so at least every other week. Sixty-nine percent of the intervention teachers participated in any professional development during the school year. Those who participated received one to six professional development sessions. All intervention teachers taught at least one Literacy Design Collaborative module during the study year, nearly all taught two, and some taught as many as four.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were enrolled in similar history and science courses taught by teachers who were not participating in Literacy Design Collaborative. Further information on this business-as-usual comparison condition was not provided in the study. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Support for implementation
The authors report that the amount and content of professional development, the number of participating teachers within schools, and other implementation factors varied across districts and schools.
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.
-
Herman, Joan; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth. (2016). Supporting Common Core Instruction with Literacy Design Collaborative: A Tale of Two Studies. AERA Open, v2 n3.
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).