Literacy Design Collaborative 2016-2017 Evaluation Report for the New York City Department of Education. CRESST Report 856
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; Haubner, Julie; La Torre, Deborah; Bozeman, Velette (2018). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED600125
-
examining6,896Students, grades4-8
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State English Language Arts Assessment |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 6-8;
|
0.01 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State English Language Arts Assessment |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 4-5;
|
-0.08 |
-0.02 |
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.
-
13% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
New York
-
Race Asian 8% Black 31% Other or unknown 56% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 55% Not Hispanic or Latino 45%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 24 elementary schools and 105 middle schools in New York City with students in grades 4 through 8. The study included English language arts, social studies, and science classrooms in the middle schools.
Study sample
The 468 elementary school students—234 in each condition—were taught by 14 teachers in 5 schools in the intervention group and 100 teachers in 19 schools in the comparison group. The 6,428 middle school students—3,214 in each condition—were taught by 104 teachers in 20 schools in the intervention condition and 1,423 teachers in 85 schools in the comparison condition. Approximately half the students were male, 87% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 13% were English learners, and 24% were eligible for special education. Fifty-five percent of the students were Hispanic or Latino, 31% were non-Hispanic Black, 8% were non-Hispanic Asian, and 6% were non-Hispanic White.
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. Intervention group schools began implementing Literacy Design Collaborative in the 2016–17 school year. Participating teachers were expected to develop at least one instructional module aligned with English language arts standards to use in their classroom in the school year, provide instruction using at least two modules per year, and participate in at least 60 minutes of planning time in a professional learning community every 2 weeks. In addition, participating teachers were expected to receive feedback and support from a Literacy Design Collaborative coach remotely during learning community time, and through peer review comments on their instructional modules through the online CoreTools library. The authors do not describe the implementation experience of the sample of teachers in this study.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not participate in Literacy Design Collaborative. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Support for implementation
Coaches worked directly with one or more teacher-leaders trained in each school to support implementation. Coaches and teacher-leaders worked together to structure learning community time and coaching support for other teachers in their schools. Literacy Design Collaborative staff also trained school administrators and district instructional specialists to support implementation, observe classroom instruction, and attend learning community sessions.
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC))
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).