Equipping and Empowering Eighth-Grade Mathematics Teachers to Create Dynamic Learning Activities Promoting Conceptual Understanding
Cheng, Ivan; Ainsworth, Andrew T.; Appelrouth, Scott A.; Xie, Jimmy; Moreno, Callie (2018). AERA Online Paper Repository, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York City, NY,. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED617626
-
examining4,240Students, grade8
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Grant Competition (findings for Collaboration Resulting in Educators Applying Technology Effectively (CREATE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high individual-level non-response, but 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) - Mathematics |
Collaboration Resulting in Educators Applying Technology Effectively (CREATE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in ten school districts.
Study sample
Sample characteristics are not reported for school districts, schools, teachers, or students.
Intervention Group
The CREATE (Collaboration Resulting in Educators Applying Technology Effectively) Project consisted of four key activities: (1) Technology to help teachers develop interactive lesson activities that guide students toward discovering key mathematical concepts, providing immediate feedback along the way; (2) Trained coaches to help teachers to clarify goals, ask questions that focus on student learning, invite teachers to share their ideas, share their own ideas, be responsive to teachers’ concerns, and refocus when getting off task; (3) Professional development for teachers to use curricula and practices that incorporate the use of guided discovery. and (4) Ongoing Responsive Teaching Cycle (RTC) Coaching Sessions, where teachers continue collaborating with coaches regularly during the academic year.
Comparison Group
Comparison teachers conducted business as usual. They did not receive the professional development or coaching during the regular school year. Once the study was over comparison teachers were offered the opportunity to participate in the intervention.
Support for implementation
Support for implementation resources are not described.
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).