Promoting Deeper Learning in High School: Evidence of Opportunities and Outcomes
Rickles, Jordan; Zeiser, Kristina L.; Yang, Rui; O'Day, Jennifer; Garet, Michael S. (2019). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v41 n2 p214-234. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1213928
-
examining20,435Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Deeper Learning Network)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OECD PISA-Based Test for Schools (PBTS) |
Deeper Learning Network vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.12 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OECD PISA-Based Test for Schools (PBTS) |
Deeper Learning Network vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.11 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OECD PISA-Based Test for Schools (PBTS) |
Deeper Learning Network vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
0.00 |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
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, New York
-
Race Black 13% Other or unknown 67% White 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 61% Other or unknown 39% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in high schools located in large, urban areas of California and New York. Schools were all part of the Hewlett Foundation's Deeper Learning Community of Practice (i.e., "network school"). The comparison schools represented high schools the intervention group students likely would have attended if they had not attended a network school. All schools had nonselective admissions, and served a student population in which at least 25 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Study sample
There were 16 schools in the intervention group and 16 schools in the comparison group, although sample sizes varied depending on the outcome. About 5 percent of the students had an individualized education plan (IEP). All students were in high school. There were 4 cohorts in the study. Cohort 1 started grade 9 in 2007-08; cohort 2 started grade 9 in 2008-09; cohort 3 started grade 9 in 2009-10; and cohort 4 started grade 9 in 2010-11.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effect of a "school-wide approach to promoting deeper learning" supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation's network schools. The intervention group schools were considered "mature" and moderate or high implementers of their network’s model, based on network representatives’ reports and rubrics. "Deeper learning" is defined as the “process through which an individual becomes capable of taking what was learned in one situation and applying it to a new situation.” The intervention approach focuses on three domains: cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, and competencies within six interconnected dimensions of deeper learning seen as prerequisites for success in college, career, and civic life (mastery of core academic content, critical thinking and complex problem-solving skills, effective communication skills, collaboration skills, an understanding of how to learn, and academic mind-sets). Intervention group high schools used a range of strategies to develop students’ deeper learning competencies. Schools commonly used strategies such as project-based learning, internship opportunities, collaborative group work, longer term cumulative assessments, and regular meetings between a student or group of students and an advisor.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual.
Support for implementation
Intervention group schools were offered a range of assistance, although the types of assistance offered varied from network to network. Common supports included curriculum and instructional materials, leadership and management support, and professional learning opportunities for teachers
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.
-
Zeiser, Kristina L.; Taylor, James; Rickles, Jordan; Garet, Michael S.; Segeritz, Michael. (2014). Evidence of Deeper Learning Outcomes. Findings from the Study of Deeper Learning Opportunities and Outcomes: Report 3. American Institutes for Research.
-
Zeiser, K.L., Rickles, J., Taylor, J., and Garet, M.S. (2014). Evidence of Deeper Learning Outcomes: Technical Appendix. American Institutes for Research.
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).