Education Development Center (2015, December). Waltham, MA: Author.
Reviewed: August 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TerraNova: Science |
STEM21 Academy vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
TerraNova: Science |
STEM21 Academy vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in secondary schools in the northeastern United States. Ten high schools in Connecticut participated. All participating students, in both the intervention and comparison groups, received instruction in classrooms within these schools.
The intervention analytic sample included 114 students. Of this sample, 57% were male, 29% minority, 25% on free or reduced-price lunch, 4% special education, and zero were English-language learners. The comparison group analytic sample included 114 students. In the comparison group, 46% were male, 30% minority, 33% on free or reduced-price lunch, 2% special education, and less than one percent English-language learners.
The intervention, STEM21 Academy, is a standards-based science, math, and technology high school course sequence utilizing blended learning and authentic experiences for content and skill acquisition. The blended learning occurs in the classroom guided by a teacher and uses online course management software to present interactive content learning modules and connect students with university STEM faculty, STEM professionals, and students in other districts. Experiential learning activities involve project-based assignments and periodic visits to universities and sites where STEM professionals are employed. The intervention is described as a grade 9 through 12 course sequence. This evaluation of the intervention presents findings that meet Group Design Standards following participation in grades 9 and 10.
Students in the comparison condition are described as "non-participating," in contrast to those in the intervention condition. This description implies the comparison group received a "business-as-usual" condition. It is not clear from the study whether they were taught by teachers who also taught intervention students.
Teachers providing instruction to students in the intervention received professional development prior to and during the intervention. A five-day summer institute taught teachers how to use the curriculum and online resources. Intervention "specialists" conducted classroom visits to improve content delivery and facilitated professional learning communities to promote sharing of best practices.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube