Study of Physical Science and Engineering Invention Kit Curriculum for Middle School: External Evaluation of the Investing in Innovation Central Virginia Advanced Manufacturing Development Grant 78. Making Research Relevant
LiCalsi, Christina; Reese, Kelly; Garcia-Piriz, Dionisio (2019). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611398
-
examining419Students, grades7-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Physical Science and Engineering Invention Kit Curriculum for Middle School)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of physical science and engineering knowledge (researcher-developed) |
Physical Science and Engineering Invention Kit Curriculum for Middle School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.45 |
1.16 |
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.
-
8% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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
Virginia
-
Race Black 15% Other or unknown 22% White 63% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
Seven middle schools from the Virginia districts of Albemarle County, Charlottesville City, and Fluvanna County participated in the impact study. Four schools from these three districts agreed to use the invention kits during the 2017–18 school year and composed the treatment group. All students from treatment schools enrolled in both engineering (elective course) and physical science (required course) participated in the intervention. An additional three schools from Albemarle County were selected by the districts to be part of the comparison group given their regional location and their overall similarities in demographic composition with treatment schools.
Study sample
On average, study schools were 49% female, 15% Black, 12% Hispanic, 63% white, 10% other race/ethnicity, 8% English learners, 13% students with disabilities, and 34% economically disadvantaged.
Intervention Group
The Physical Science and Engineering Invention Kit Curriculum for Middle School project teaches key science and engineering principles and related skills to middle school students through constructing modern interpretations of past great inventions. The intention of the kits is that as students analyze the historical context and cultural significance of the inventions, they are inspired by the power of new ideas within science and engineering to transform human life. By creating an entry-point of understanding for students through a series of science and engineering invention kits, students will gain experience that will allow them to build their technical knowledge of the science and engineering principles demonstrated by the fundamental inventions. With greater technical knowledge and interest in engineering and science, students will perform better on assessments of their engineering and science skills, retain fundamental science knowledge and skills, have more confidence in their learning abilities, and be more likely to pursue advanced careers in science, engineering and math.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition implemented business as usual engineering curriculum. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the intervention received the kits including lab, activity, and challenge instructions, electronic computer-aided design files and instructions, and teacher guides.
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).