Evaluation of Learning by Making i3 Project: STEM Success for Rural Schools
Li, Linlin; Tripathy, Rachel; Salguero, Katie; McCarthy, Betsy (2018). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594016
-
examining150Students, grades9-12
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Learning by Making)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LbyM Mathematics |
Learning by Making vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
50.73 |
46.21 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LbyM Science |
Learning by Making vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
49.36 |
41.49 |
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.
-
13% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural
-
- 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
California
-
Race Asian 1% Black 1% Native American 14% Other or unknown 42% White 42% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 41% Not Hispanic or Latino 59% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 61% Other or unknown 39%
Study Details
Setting
The study of the LbyM STEM 1 project took place in the 2016-2017 academic year. High school students were recruited from high-need rural high schools in Mendocino County, California. These six high-need rural high schools in Mendocino County primarily serve families with high rates of family poverty and low rates of college readiness.
Study sample
Across participating schools, 41% of students were Hispanic or Latino, 1% were African American, 42% were white, 1% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 14% were Native American, and 1% were two or more races. Sixty-one percent of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and 13% were English learners.
Intervention Group
The Learning by Making (LbyM) curriculum integrates the NGSS Scientific and Engineering Design Practices and CCSS-M Standards for Mathematical Practice into a modified project-based learning approach whereby the use of mathematics is integrated with science content and technology as students do experiments related to real-world problems. During LbyM investigations, students write Logo code to read the sensors and obtain data, building on basic coding to perform individualized experiments, create simulations, and explore models. Students also analyze and interpret data while using mathematics and engaging in computational thinking without the difficulties usually encountered in learning complex programming languages. LbyM is implemented via professional development for teachers and the Learning by Making curriculum, which aims to improve teachers’ instructional competence, students’ engagement, students’ interest and confidence in STEM, and teachers’ instructional practices. The intended results of these changes include greater student high school math and science achievement, increased student college qualification and STEM majors chosen, increased college acceptance and completion, and increased STEM professionals from under-represented and high-need populations.
Comparison Group
Comparison students used business-as-usual mathematics and science curricula. No additional information is provided by the evaluators on the curriculum or professional development that constitutes business as usual, but students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which provided professional development and the Learning by Making curriculum to 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).