Group Work is Not Cooperative Learning: An Evaluation of PowerTeaching in Middle Schools. A Report from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Evaluation
Rappaport, Shelley; Grossman, Jean; Garcia, Ivonne; Zhu, Pei; Avila, Osvaldo; Granito, Kelly (2017). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575643
-
examining26,808Students, grades6-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for PowerTeaching)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grade 7;
|
-0.05 |
-0.05 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black;
|
-0.25 |
-0.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Special education;
|
-0.82 |
-0.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
-0.09 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Free or reduced price lunch;
|
-0.08 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Not English Language Learners;
|
0.08 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Not Special education;
|
0.07 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
-0.19 |
-0.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
0.39 |
0.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Not eligible for free or reduced price lunch;
|
0.20 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State standardized math test |
PowerTeaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Language Learners;
|
-0.70 |
-0.63 |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Suburban, 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
California, Illinois
-
Race Asian 5% Black 31% Other or unknown 52% White 12% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 51% Not Hispanic or Latino 49%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in general education mathematics classrooms in 58 middle schools across five school districts in Illinois and California. Nearly all of the schools were located in urban environments, such as large or mid-sized cities or towns. On average, 72% of students enrolled in schools in the study were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 91% of the schools were designated Title I schools.
Study sample
Across the study schools an average of 72% of students were eligible for free/reduced price-lunch, an average of 12% where White non-Hispanic, 31% Black non-Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 52% other or race was not specified. Fifty-one percent identified as Hispanic and 49% were male. In the analysis sample, 18% of students were English learners and 11% received special education services.
Intervention Group
PowerTeaching (PTi3), developed by Success for All Foundation (SFAF), is a structured cooperative learning model that aims to improve teachers' ability to implement cooperative learning in their classroom instruction. SFAF defined cooperative learning to include three core elements: (1) team recogniton: students in heterogeneous skill groups work in teams to win recognition for the team based on the team's performance; (2) equal opportunities for all students: all students on the team contribute to goals and have a role in the team; and (3) interdependence: teams earn points based on quality of work performed by any randomly selected member of their team. In the study, SFAF provided training to school-level facilitators, who in turn trained the math teachers in the PTi3 schools. These trainings were provided over three implementation years. Teachers were expected to participate in continuous improvement meetings, specifically biweekly PTi3 professional development sessions (“component team meetings”) led by the facilitator. The meetings were intended to help teachers set PTi3-specific instructional goals, monitor teachers’ implementation of the program, discuss classroom challenges, and review student progress.
Comparison Group
The intervention was not implemented in control group schools. Teachers in the control group schools received the training and support they would usually receive in the absence of the study.
Support for implementation
No additional supports for implementation are described beyond those that are listed as part of the model. That is, teachers were expected to participate in biweekly PTi3 professional development sessions (“component team meetings”) led by a PTi3 facilitator.
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.
-
Rappaport, Shelley; Grossman, Jean; Garcia, Ivonne; Zhu, Pei; Avila, Osvaldo; Granito, Kelly. (2017). Group Work Is Not Cooperative Learning: An In-Depth Look at the 2014-2015 Academic Year. A Working Paper from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Evaluation. MDRC.
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).