Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI): Evaluation Report for an Investing in Innovation (I3) Development Grant
Nakamoto, Jonathan; Bojorquez, Juan Carlos (2017). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573965
-
examining12,330Students, grades6-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-Based Science |
Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
16.09 |
15.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Nevada Science Criterion Reference Test |
Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 8;
|
299.86 |
299.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-Based Science |
Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
13.40 |
13.69 |
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.
-
23% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Suburban, 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
Nevada
-
Race Asian 4% Black 17% Native American 0% Other or unknown 62% Pacific Islander 1% Two or more races 4% White 12% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 62% Other or unknown 38% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in middle schools located in the Clark County School District (CCSE), an urban school district in the state of Nevada.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 12,330 students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade (3,418 intervention, 8,912 comparison). The sample was 49 percent female and 51 percent male. The majority of students (62%) identified their ethnicity as Hispanic. The racial composition was 17 percent Black, 12 percent White, 4 percent Asian, 1 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native. About one-fourth (23%) of students were English language learners, and 11 percent had an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Intervention Group
The Pathways to STEM Initiative (PSI) aims to improve middle school students' science achievement and to encourage more students to pursue higher education in STEM fields. The intervention includes eight components: (1) teacher professional development with an emphasis on the needs of students with learning disabilities and English language learners; (2) implementation of Project Lead the Way’s (PLTW) Gateway To Technology (GTT) curriculum; (3) on-going teacher support in the form of weekly visits to each school by the study's project director; (4) classroom technology, including laptops for students and teachers, software supporting implementation of the curriculum, and ongoing monitoring; (5) weekly sessions for students to meet with STEM professionals; (6) after-school STEM club; (7) summer STEM camp; and (8) math and science tutoring. The last four components are optional. In the study, GTT was integrated into all seventh- and eighth-grade science classes in Years 1 and 2, and was offered as an elective to sixth-grade students in Year 3. Therefore, seventh- and eighth-grade students participated in the intervention for 2 years, while sixth-grade students participated for 1 year.
Comparison Group
The comparison schools included in the study continued to follow their business-as-usual curriculum.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in Project Lead the Way (PLTW) readiness training modules, PLTW core training, PLTW ongoing training (virtual academy), and attendance at optional Clark County School District professional development sessions. Teachers also received ongoing support in implementing the GTT 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).