Supporting Science Learning and Literacy Development Together: Initial Results from a Curriculum Study in 1st Grade Classrooms
Christopher J. Harris; Robert Murphy; Mingyu Feng; Daisy W. Rutstein (2023). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED638494
-
examining1,444Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Amplify Science 1st Grade Curriculum)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Assessment for Reading Comprehension |
Amplify Science 1st Grade Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.97 |
10.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NGSS-focused science-vocabulary-in-use assessment |
Amplify Science 1st Grade Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.00 |
24.90 |
Yes |
|
|
Iowa Assessment for Science Comprehension |
Amplify Science 1st Grade Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
151.00 |
149.00 |
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.
-
29% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, 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
California
-
Race Asian 9% Black 5% Other or unknown 78% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 76% Not Hispanic or Latino 24% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 71% No FRPL 29%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 40 elementary schools in three school districts in California, including a large urban district, a large rural district, and a midsize suburban district.
Study sample
A total number of 1,884 students in grade 1 were included in the study. The analytic sample of students with pretest and posttest scores included 714 students in the intervention group and 730 students in the comparison group. Approximately 71% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, 29% were English learners, and 8% had an Individualized Education Plan. Nine percent were Asian, 9% were White, 5% were Black, and 78% did not report race. Seventy-six percent were Hispanic or Latino and 24% were non-Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the Amplify Science intervention group received instruction on the curriculum and implemented it during the school year. The curriculum included 22 lessons with 2-3 lessons per week over 6-8 weeks on life, physical, and Earth and space science topics. Teachers also received a curriculum package that included a teacher's guide and media for students, science kit materials and literacy supports, student notebooks for writing and drawing, and teacher and student books for read-aloud, shared, and partner reading.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition were instructed to continue their business-as-usual science instruction and follow their district's guidance regarding Next Generation Science Standards performance expectations, which covered the same life, physical, and Earth and Space science as the Amplify Science group.
Support for implementation
Teachers received a 3-day training on the Amplify Science curriculum over the summer and school year, including the opportunity to attend makeup sessions (either a video recording or a video conference with a facilitator). Before the school year started, teachers attended a one-day workshop. The workshop introduced the curriculum’s combined science and literacy teaching approach, let teachers try parts of the curriculum units as students, and showed them how to use the digital teacher’s guide. During the school year, developers held two additional trainings that gave teachers the opportunity to share their experiences implementing the curriculum and receive advice from peers.
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).