Evaluation Report: Investing in Innovation Pathways to Success
Lai, Mark H. C. (2021). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED615932
-
examining1,428Students, grades7-12
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Pathways to Success)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative HS GPA |
Pathways to Success vs. Other intervention |
6 Months |
Full sample - 6 month follow-up ;
|
291.00 |
293.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Cumulative HS GPA |
Pathways to Success vs. Other intervention |
18 Months |
Full sample - 18 month follow-up;
|
2.81 |
2.86 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Disruptive Behavior subscale - Teacher-reported student engagement (Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl, 1995) |
Pathways to Success vs. Other intervention |
6 Months |
Full sample - 6 month follow-up;
|
1.43 |
1.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student-reported school engagement (researcher-adapted from Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995) |
Pathways to Success vs. Other intervention |
6 Months |
Full sample - 6 month follow-up;
|
3.59 |
3.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Initiative-taking subscale - Teacher-reported student engagement (Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl, 1995) |
Pathways to Success vs. Other intervention |
6 Months |
Full sample - 6 month follow-up;
|
2.65 |
2.67 |
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.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
- 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
Colorado
-
Race Other or unknown 41% White 59% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 29% Not Hispanic or Latino 71%
Study Details
Setting
The Pathways program was offered to middle and high school students in 10 schools across five participating school districts in Colorado.
Study sample
Of the students who participated in the study, 58.6% were classified as non-Latino white, with an additional 8.9% describing themselves as African American or Native American, and 3.3% as something else. Twenty-nine percent were identified as being Latino. The majority of participants (53%) were male, and 42.1% of students were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Pathways to Success program involves development of a digital platform to deliver Identity-Based Motivation (IBM) to middle and high school students. The program is intended to be implemented during class in 15-minute sessions twice a week for six consecutive weeks at the beginning of the school year. The goal of the Pathways to Success program is to improve academic outcomes by changing the three elements of identity-based motivation. These elements are operationalized in Pathways to Success as having school-focused possible identities with strategies to attain them, experiencing one’s adult future as close and connected to the present, and productive interpretations of experienced difficulty. The specific non-cognitive factors targeted by the Pathways to Success program are feelings of connection to the future, strategies for action, and productive interpretation of experienced difficulty. Improvements in these non-cognitive factors are expected to lead to improvements in students’ school engagement and academic outcomes in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and overall grade point average (GPA).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition used one of two educational games, based on the class in which the treatment was implemented. For those where the treatment was provided in their science course, students experienced the science learning game Motion Force. If the treatment was delivered in their language arts class, students in the comparison condition experienced the educational game Sleep Furiously.
Support for implementation
Teachers and principals were asked to allow their students to access the digital platform individually (engaging with either the treatment software or the alternative software) two times a week for six consecutive weeks. No professional development or coaching was provided.
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).