Improving science achievement - Is it possible? evaluating the efficacy of a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention
Schneider, B., Krajcik, J., Lavonen, J., Salmela-Aro, K., Klager, C., Bradford, L., Chen, I.-C., Baker, Q., Touitou, I., Peek-Brown, D., Dezendorf, R.M., Maestrales, S., & Bartz, K. (2022). Educational Researcher, 51(2), 109-121. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X211067742.
-
examining4,328Students, grades9-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2022
- Grant Competition (findings for Crafting Engaging Science Environments (CESE))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher developed standards aligned assessment on chemistry and physics |
Crafting Engaging Science Environments (CESE) 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
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 45%
Male: 46%
Other or unknown: 9% -
- 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, Michigan
-
Race Asian 4% Black 9% Other or unknown 55% Two or more races 3% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 41% Not Hispanic or Latino 59% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 70 high schools in California and Michigan.
Study sample
The sample included a diverse group of students: 29 percent were White, 9 percent were Black, 4 percent were Asian, 3 percent were two or more races, and 55 percent were "other or unknown." Forty-one percent of the students were Hispanic or Latino; 46 percent were male, 45 percent were female, and 9 percent were "other or unknown."
Intervention Group
Crafting Engaging Science Environments is a high school chemistry and physics project-based learning intervention. For the study three units for chemistry and physics were each implemented for 4 to 6 weeks. Each unit was designed with an overriding driving question, lesson sequences incorporating scientific practices, and a post-unit assessment.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition continued with business-as-usual science instruction.
Support for implementation
Teachers were provided training and follow-up support from facilitators. Teachers attended a 3-day training to learn about the intervention, which was conducted by team members and experienced teacher facilitators. Teachers also met with facilitators several times during the school year to discuss teaching the next set of units. Facilitators also connected with the teachers via video conferences and online message boards. Teachers had access to a hotline and a monitored email address to ask questions. Facilitators were also available to answer questions face-to-face if needed.
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).