Findings from a Two-Year Effectiveness Trial of the Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment
Yu, Jennifer; Wei, Xin; Hall, Tracey E.; Oehlkers, Agatha; Ferguson, Kate; Robinson, Kristin H.; Blackorby, Jose (2021). Frontiers in Education v6 Article 719672. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED623254
-
examining797Students, grade4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Motivation for Science (Self-Efficacy Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.42 |
3.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Comfort using Computers Subscale) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.32 |
3.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Interest Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.44 |
3.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Desire for Challenge Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.25 |
3.31 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Motivation for Science (Desire for Challenge Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with disabilities;
|
3.08 |
2.99 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Motivation for Science (Self-Efficacy Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with disabilities;
|
3.33 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Motivation for Science (Interest Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with disabilities;
|
3.50 |
3.19 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Motivation for Science (Comfort using Computers Subscale) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with disabilities;
|
3.32 |
2.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Comfort using Computers Subscale) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Home language other than English or Spanish;
|
3.44 |
3.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Desire for Challenge Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Home language other than English or Spanish;
|
3.27 |
3.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Interest Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Home language other than English or Spanish;
|
3.39 |
3.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motivation for Science (Self-Efficacy Subscore) |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Home language other than English or Spanish;
|
3.34 |
3.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Science |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
197.83 |
198.65 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Science |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Home language other than English or Spanish;
|
203.24 |
200.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Science |
Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Students with disabilities;
|
190.90 |
185.86 |
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.
-
25% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Other or unknown: 48% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 39% Native American 2% Other or unknown 56% White 4% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 44% Other or unknown 56% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 82% Other or unknown 18%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in fourth-grade general education science classrooms across seven elementary schools in a large urban school district in the United States. It included two cohorts of teachers and students—the first cohort ran from August 2017 to January 2018 and included 29 teachers, while the second cohort ran from August 2018 to January 2019 and included 7 teachers, for a total of 36 participating fourth-grade teachers. Students in the participating teachers' inclusive science classes were eligible to enroll in the study.
Study sample
A total of 36 teachers were randomized to study condition (20 intervention, 16 comparison). No teachers were lost to attrition. The study included 902 fourth-grade students (469 in the intervention group and 433 in the comparison group). The students in the sample were diverse: 52 percent were female; 44 percent were Hispanic; 39 percent were African American; 12 percent were Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 4 percent were White; and 2 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Native. The most common languages spoken at home among participating students were English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. The majority (82%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. One-fourth (25%) were dual language learners, 7 percent had an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and 4 percent had a 504 plan.
Intervention Group
The Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment (SNUDLE) is a digital science notebook designed to support students, particularly those with learning disabilities, at risk, struggling, or unmotivated, in developing scientific inquiry skills. SNUDLE uses the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to minimize barriers to learning and provide real-time supports for active science learning and effective science notebook use. Key features of SNUDLE include: 1) a structured space for students to collect, organize, and display observations and data; 2) opportunities for students to reflect on inquiry experiences and demonstrate understanding through text and data tables at each stage of investigation; 3) built-in accessibility features such as text-to-speech with real-time highlighting, English-to-preferred language translation, keyboard-accessible actions, and a multimedia glossary for vocabulary support; 4) contextual supports to reinforce effective science learning behaviors through pedagogy built into the interface design; and 5) a teacher interface with features to facilitate active science learning. Teachers in the intervention group implemented SNUDLE within their district's StemScopes science curriculum for 18 investigations across 9 units from September to January of the 2017-18 or 2018-19 school year, based on their cohort. SNUDLE replaced the use of traditional paper science notebooks in the intervention classrooms, while teachers in the comparison group continued using the paper notebooks.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group implemented their district's StemScopes science curriculum using traditional paper science notebooks or worksheets. They followed the same pacing guide as the intervention teachers, covering 18 investigations across 9 units from September to January of the 2017-18 or 2018-19 school year, based on their cohort. The only difference between the intervention and comparison conditions was the use of the SNUDLE digital notebook in the intervention classrooms versus paper notebooks in the comparison classrooms.
Support for implementation
All participating teachers, both in the intervention and comparison groups, received a full-day training in the summer prior to the start of the study. The training, conducted by staff from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), introduced teachers to the study's purpose and goals and provided professional development on the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). After random assignment, teachers in the intervention group received an additional 4-hour training from CAST staff. During this training, intervention teachers were provided with SNUDLE materials and an introduction to the program's educational philosophy, pedagogy, and features. They had multiple opportunities to practice using both the teacher and student interfaces of SNUDLE and role-play how to integrate it into their classrooms. Once implementation began, intervention teachers received ongoing support from CAST, including weekly newsletters with best practice tips and individualized coaching when requested or when classroom observations indicated a need for further support and technical assistance.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Yu, Jennifer W.; Fikes, Annie E.; Ferguson, Kate; Wei, Xin; Tiruke, Tejaswini; Hall, Tracey E.; Blackorby, Jose. (2019). Efficacy Study of the Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning Environment: Preliminary Findings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Toronto, Canada,.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).