Literacy Design Collaborative 2017-2018 Evaluation Report for New York City Department of Education
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Chang, Sandy; Bozeman, Velette; Xie, Wenya; Haubner, Julie (2019). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED606884
-
examining8,108Students, grades4-8
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2021
- Grant Competition (findings for Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State Assessment: ELA |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
0.02 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
New York State Assessment: ELA |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 2 middle school sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
New York State Assessment: ELA |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 returning middle school sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
New York State Assessment: ELA |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 2 elementary sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
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 5% Black 40% Other or unknown 49% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Not Hispanic or Latino 52%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in a large, urban school district in New York City. The student outcome analyses included students from 10 LDC and 43 comparison middle schools for the Cohort 1 returning middle schools sample, 14 LDC and 65 comparison elementary schools for the Cohort 2 elementary sample, and 10 LDC and 41 comparison middle schools for the Cohort 2 middle school sample.
Study sample
Sample characteristics were provided separately for each sample. For the Cohort 1 returning middle school sample, just over half were female (54%). Race percentages were 32 percent Black, 10 percent White, 4 percent Asian, and 1 percent other, with 54 percent identifying as Hispanic. The majority (87%) were categorized as having poverty status. About a quarter (24%) were in special education, and 11 percent were English language learners. For the Cohort 2 elementary school sample, just over half were female (52%). Race percentages were 36 percent black, 4 percent white, 3 percent Asian, and 1 percent other, with 56 percent identifying as Hispanic. The majority (86%) were categorized as having poverty status. Almost a quarter (22%) were in special education, and 14 percent were English language learners. For the Cohort 2 middle school sample, just under half were female (48%). Race percentages were 51 percent black, 10 percent Asian, 4 percent white, and 2 percent other, with 34 percent identifying as Hispanic. The majority (81%) were categorized as having poverty status. About a quarter (26%) were in special education, and 13 percent were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) is a professional development program that aims to develop teacher competencies in embedding literacy skill development throughout content area curriculum. Four main intervention components include (1) a coach-supported Professional Learning Community (PLC) formed to implement the intervention and provide a space for teacher collaboration; (2) asynchronous support from three coaches who provide teachers with feedback; (3) implementation activities completed by participating teachers (e.g., module development and classroom implementation); and (4) leadership support. These four key components are expected to lead to increased teacher skill and expertise, which in turn, may lead to increased student engagement and skill acquisition, higher test scores, and higher rates of course completion.
Comparison Group
The comparison schools conducted business as usual and did not receive the LDC intervention.
Support for implementation
No support for implementation was 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).