An Evaluation of the Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) i3 Evaluation (Valid 45) Final Report
Wolf, Rebecca; Cook, Michael; Reid, Alan; Neitzel, Amanda; Ross, Steven; Risman, Kelsey (2021). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED613901
-
examining2,430Students, grade5
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 2;
|
N/A |
1564.06 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 1;
|
N/A |
1558.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Science |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 2;
|
N/A |
3904.85 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): science subtest |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 1;
|
N/A |
213.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Big Ideas in Science Assessment (BISA) |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 1;
|
N/A |
19.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Big Ideas in Science Assessment (BISA) |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 2;
|
N/A |
17.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): science subtest |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 2;
|
N/A |
213.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Science |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Year 1;
|
N/A |
3841.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science Teacher Observation Record (STOR) |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Transitional Bilingual Observation Protocol (TBOP) - Dimension 1 |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Transitional Bilingual Observation Protocol (TBOP) - Dimension 2 |
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 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
Texas
-
Race Black 7% Other or unknown 77% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 74% Not Hispanic or Latino 26%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 71 public schools located in 37 different school districts in Texas. Schools were chosen in districts in which low-income students comprised more than 50% of the student population. The schools were predominantly rural. The intervention was implemented in fifth-grade science teacher general education classrooms.
Study sample
The teacher sample was 74% female and 33% bilingual. Teachers had an average of 10.5 years of teaching experience, 7.85 years of teaching science, and 5.35 years of teaching 5th grade. The student sample identified as Latino (74%), White (16%), and Black (7%). Half of the sample was female (50%). Three-quarters (75%) of the sample of students were classified as low-income, 9% had a 504 plan and 33% were English Learners.
Intervention Group
Literacy-Infused Science Using Technology Innovation Opportunity (LISTO) assists teachers and principals in building instructional capacity and improving students’ science and reading achievement via three key components: virtual professional development (VPD), virtual mentoring and coaching (VMC), and standards-aligned literacy-infused science curricula. Teachers are trained to improve instructional delivery of core content, which increases their pedagogical skills. Through this increase in pedagogical skills and the use of the LISTO curricula, students increase achievement in reading and science.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition offered business-as-usual opportunities for students. Teachers received business as usual professional development and supports. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the intervention participated in virtual professional development and virtual mentoring and coaching focused on the Literacy-Infused Science curriculum.
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).