Zoblotsky, T., Bertz, C., Gallagher, B., & Alberg, M. (2016). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.
Reviewed: January 2017
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
58.81 |
53.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.08 |
84.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
323.02 |
327.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina end-of-grade state standardized test: Science |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
North Carolina sample;
|
252.40 |
254.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Houston sample;
|
555.90 |
599.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Houston Independent School District (HISD) STAAR state standardized test: Science |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Houston sample;
|
3734.20 |
3889.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
FRPL;
|
55.26 |
49.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-IEP;
|
60.86 |
55.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female;
|
61.40 |
56.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-ELL;
|
59.81 |
54.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male;
|
55.90 |
51.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
IEP;
|
41.02 |
37.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Test |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-FRPL;
|
63.54 |
59.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female;
|
68.21 |
66.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-ELL;
|
86.45 |
85.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-IEP;
|
86.72 |
86.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male;
|
82.85 |
82.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-IEP;
|
335.39 |
335.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-FRPL;
|
364.67 |
364.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
IEP;
|
70.25 |
70.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-ELL;
|
332.23 |
334.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female;
|
330.93 |
332.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Non-FRPL;
|
88.91 |
89.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
The LASER Model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male;
|
314.88 |
321.56 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in elementary and middle schools in three regions: Houston Independent School District; central and western North Carolina; and northern New Mexico. The LASER intervention and business-as-usual science instruction were implemented in regular classrooms during science instruction.
Sample characteristics are provided for each of the three regions in the study. The Texas region included 62% Hispanic and 27% African American students; 59% free/reduced lunch recipients, and 29% students identified as ELL. The New Mexico region included 63% Hispanic and 21% White, and 14% American Indian/Alaskan students; 81% free/reduced lunch recipients, and 20% students identified as ELL. The North Carolina region included 52% White and 35% African American students; 56% identified as economically disadvantaged, and 7% students identified as ELL.
The LASER is a whole-class science instruction model that is designed to incorporate five components or pillars: research-based curriculum; differentiated professional development; administrative and community support; materials support; and assessment. The curriculum at the heart of the model is the Science and Technology Concepts (STC) program.
The authors state that the Phase II schools that comprise the comparison group did not implement the LASER model during the posttest assessment period. No other information is provided regarding services received by the comparison condition. Presumably the comparison schools implemented a range of business-as-usual science instruction during the study period.
The grant recipient, the Smithsonian Science Education Center (SEEC), supported the Phase 1 schools throughout the study. SEEC provided summer professional development to all teachers providing the LASER intervention. Professional development was focused both on particular units and on the program's science content.
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.
Alberg, M. (2015). The LASER Model: A systemic and sustainable approach for achieving high standards in science education [Middle schools]. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Science Education Center.
Smithsonian Science Education Center. (2015). The LASER model: A systemic and sustainable approach for achieving high standards in science education. Executive summary [Middle Schools]. Washington, DC: Author.
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