2013 Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) i3 study
ICF Evaluation Team (2018). Washington D.C.: ICF. http://www.icf.com/-/media/files/icf/reports/2020/CORE-i3-final-report. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618428
-
examining4,885Students, grades8-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment+ (CWRA+) Selected Response Questions (SRQ) Score |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Local phase, year 1;
|
846.24 |
852.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment+ (CWRA+) Selected Response Questions (SRQ) Score |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 1;
|
910.62 |
919.53 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment+ (CWRA+) Selected Response Questions (SRQ) Score |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 2;
|
932.41 |
928.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment+ (CWRA+) Selected Response Questions (SRQ) Score |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Local phase, year 2;
|
861.43 |
860.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed measure of student engagement |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 1;
|
3.03 |
2.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-adapted Self-efficacy Scale |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 1;
|
3.14 |
3.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-adapted Self-efficacy Scale |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Local phase, year 1;
|
3.18 |
3.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed measure of student engagement |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Local phase, year 1;
|
3.03 |
3.07 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed measure of student engagement |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 2;
|
2.98 |
2.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-adapted Self-efficacy Scale |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Local phase, year 2;
|
3.14 |
3.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-adapted Self-efficacy Scale |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
National phase, year 2;
|
3.11 |
3.09 |
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.
-
Male: 50%
Other or unknown: 50% -
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
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas
-
Race Black 20% Other or unknown 14% White 66% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Other or unknown 92% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included two phases: a 2-year local phase conducted in 48 rural public middle and high schools in Alabama, and a 2-year national phase conducted in 63 rural public middle and high schools in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas. Eligibility criteria for teachers to participate in the study included: (1) teach primarily grade 8–12 students; (2) have little or no direct prior experience with technology-integrated instruction, PBL, or the CORE program; and (3) teach science, social studies, humanities, English Language Arts (ELA)/English and/or math or humanities courses.
Study sample
Half of the sample was male (50%). The majority were white (66%), followed by 20 percent Black and 8 percent Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) model is a comprehensive, systems-based approach that builds school capacity to enhance students' critical thinking, problem-solving, technology skills, collaboration skills, and creativity, which will better prepare students for college and career. The key components of CORE include: (1) administrator and school system leader collaboration, (2) professional learning communities (PLCs) for teachers, (3) provision of educational support and classroom technology equipment, (4) CORE Active Learning Model (CALM)/project-based learning (PBL) professional development, (5) follow-up training and support, (6) support and coaching, and (7) college-readiness advisement and support.
Comparison Group
Students and teachers in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction and supports.
Support for implementation
Support for implementation is substantial. To begin, schools undergo a period of advisement in strategic change management to help them prepare and make a plan to carry out new modes of instruction. Then, teachers are provided professional development workshops, support, mentoring, and networking via Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Finally, the providers of the program also give access and training in using a college-readiness assessment and other related resources.
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment + selected response questions (CWRA+ SRQ) |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample - National Study;
|
932.41 |
928.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment + selected response questions (CWRA+ SRQ) |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample - Local Study;
|
861.43 |
860.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment + selected response questions (CWRA+ SRQ) |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample - Local Study;
|
846.24 |
852.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment + selected response questions (CWRA+ SRQ) |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample - National Study;
|
910.62 |
919.53 |
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas
-
Race Black 20% Other or unknown 12% White 68% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included a local study conducted in a single state (Alabama) and a national study conducted in seven states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas).
Study sample
The analytic sample for the national study is 50% male, 68% White, 20% African American, and 11% Hispanic. Thirty-five percent of students in the analytic sample have a parent with a college degree. The local study demographics were similar, with a slightly lower proportion of Hispanic students.
Intervention Group
The CORE model is a comprehensive, systems-based approach that consists of seven components designed to build school capacity to better prepare students for college and career by enhancing their 21st century skills. Components include collaboration among administrators and school system leaders, professional learning communities (PLCs) for teachers, provision of classroom technology equipment and resources and instructional support from Education Technology Assistants (ETAs), CORE Active Learning Model (CALM)/Project-Based Learning (PBL) professional development, ongoing follow-up training and support, support and coaching in navigating the change-management process, and college-readiness advisement and support. CALM is theorized to increase student engagement through learning-based teaching and differentiation of instruction. Providing support for college-readiness assessments is expected to directly impact students’ college and career readiness, leading to positive long-term high school and college outcomes.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition did not receive the CORE intervention. Teachers engaged in business-as-usual instruction, and teachers participated in business-as-usual professional development. Teachers likely taught as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the CORE academy participate in ongoing professional development workshops and content-focused professional learning communities. Change-management support is also provided to CORE schools to assist them with making the shift to new modes of instruction.
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).