Literacy Design Collaborative 2018-2019 Evaluation Report for New York City Department of Education
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Bozeman, Velette (2020). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED608254
-
examining4,710Students, grades1-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English Language Arts state standardized test score (New York) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
New York City students in Grade: 6, 7, 8; 2 years of exposure to the LDC intervention;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
English Language Arts state standardized test score (New York) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
New York City students in Grade: 6, 7, 8. 3 years of exposure to the LDC intervention.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
CA Smarter Balanced Statewide Assessments in Reading |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Los Angeles students in Grade: 5, 6, 7, 8 at endline. 2 years of exposure to the LDC intervention.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
English Language Arts state standardized test score (New York) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
New York City Grade: 5, 6, 7, 8 (described as combined elementary and middle school student cohort). 2 years of exposure to LDC intervention.;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
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, New York
-
Race Asian 5% Black 22% Other or unknown 68% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 67% Not Hispanic or Latino 33%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in elementary and middle schools in New York City and Los Angeles.
Study sample
Across the two locations and two grade levels, the analysis sample was 67% Hispanic, 22% Black, 5% Asian, 5% White. Fifty percent of the sample was female, 88% of students lived in poverty, 18% were English learners, and 19% received special education services.
Intervention Group
The i3-funded intervention, the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC), supports teachers in implementing Common Core State Standards and embedding literacy skill development throughout content area curriculum. LDC is designed to produce more effective Common Core aligned literacy instruction and increase student learning through the provision of a set of supports and expectations to teachers and school leaders. These supports and activities include participation in an in-school professional learning community (PLC), teacher training via LDC online courses and coaching, teachers’ development and implementation of LDC modules, and school leaders’ engagement in the PLC and observation of LDC teacher practice. These supports aim to increase teacher knowledge and capacity, leading to increased student engagement, achievement, educational attainment, and college and career readiness. The intervention locations include New York City and Los Angeles.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition did not receive the LDC intervention. Teachers had access to the standard professional development and support offered by their districts and schools. Teachers likely taught as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
Teachers in LDC participated in an ongoing coach-supported professional learning community and received leadership support. They were also able to receive comments and peer review from coaches via CoreTools.
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.
-
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; Haubner, Julie; La Torre, Deborah; Bozeman, Velette. (2018). Literacy Design Collaborative 2016-2017 Evaluation Report for the New York City Department of Education. CRESST Report 856. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
-
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Chang, Sandy; Bozeman, Velette; Xie, Wenya; Haubner, Julie. (2019). Literacy Design Collaborative 2017-2018 Evaluation Report for New York City Department of Education. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
-
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Haubner, Julie; Bozeman, Velette. (2017). Literacy Design Collaborative 2016-17 Evaluation Report. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
-
Wang, Jia, Herman, Joan L., Epstein, Scott, Leon, Seth, La Torre, Deborah, Bozeman, Velette. (2020). Literacy Design Collaborative 2018-2019 Evaluation Report. CRESST Report 867. Revised. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
-
Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Chang, Sandy; Bozeman, Velette; Haubner, Julie. (2019). Literacy Design Collaborative 2017-2018 Evaluation Report. CRESST Report 863. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
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).