Jaciw, Andrew P.; Nguyen, Thanh; Lin, Li; Zacamy, Jenna L.; Kwong, Connie; Lau, Sze-Shun (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609253
Reviewed: June 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Evaluator-developed science achievement assessment - Earth and space science sub-strand |
Making Sense of SCIENCE vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Evaluator-developed science achievement assessment - Physical science sub-strand |
Making Sense of SCIENCE vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed science content knowledge test |
Making Sense of SCIENCE vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Lowest Third Incoming Math Achievement;
|
-0.52 |
-0.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed science content knowledge test |
Making Sense of SCIENCE vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed science content knowledge test |
Making Sense of SCIENCE vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Lowest Third of Incoming ELA Achievement;
|
-0.63 |
-0.69 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was conducted in 66 elementary schools (60 in the impact study) in California and Wisconsin and included two small suburban school districts and five urban school districts. Eligible schools were required to belong to school districts that served low-income students.
Participating districts included: 10-30% English learner (EL) students, 10-20% students with individualized education plans, 2-45% Black students, 2-66% Hispanic students, 7-34% families with an income below the poverty level, and $40,000-$70,000 annual median household income. Additional details on sample characteristics were not provided.
Making Sense of SCIENCE is a professional learning model aimed at raising student achievement through improving instruction. The key components of the model include building leadership capacity—for regional site coordinators, school administrators, and local Leadership Cadre teams composed of teachers, district leaders, and partners from informal science and higher education—and providing teacher professional learning. The Making Sense of SCIENCE theory of action is based on the premise that professional learning that is situated in an environment of collaborative inquiry and supported by school and district leadership produces a cascade of effects on teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, the broader school climate, and students’ opportunities to learn. These effects, in turn, yield improvements in student science achievement, student English language arts achievement, and other non-academic outcomes such as enjoyment of science, self-efficacy and agency in science learning, and aspirations for future use of science in adulthood and careers.
Schools in the comparison condition conducted business-as-usual and did not receive the intervention. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included professional learning for site coordinators, teacher leaders, district staff, administrators, and regional partners. This included professional learning communities, support materials, workshops to support the implementation of Making Sense of SCIENCE, and a teacher course facilitation academy.
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.
Jaciw, Andrew P.; Nguyen, Thanh; Lin, Li; Zacamy, Jenna L.; Kwong, Connie; Lau, Sze-Shun. (2020). Final Report of the i3 Impact Study of Making Sense of SCIENCE, 2016-17 through 2017-18. Appendix.
. (2020). Final Report of the i3 Impact Study of Making Sense of SCIENCE, 2016-17 through 2017-18. Research Summary.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube