Leming, James S. (2001). Adolescence, v36 n141 p33-45. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ632110
Reviewed: September 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.
Reviewed: April 2007
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Building Decision Skills.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ethical perspective |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
1.84 |
1.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ethical awareness |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
2.25 |
1.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social responsibility: School |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
10.89 |
9.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ethical responsibility |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
2.22 |
1.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Anticipated community participation |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
16.19 |
15.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social responsibility: General |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
26.52 |
26.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Self-esteem |
Building Decision Skills vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 12;
|
35.03 |
34.57 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
A suburban high school in St. Louis, Missouri.
The study involved 283 twelfth-grade students in one high school. The school district was described as serving middle-class communities with a mainly white population. Students were described as college preparatory, and the sample was 75% female and 25% male.
The intervention group participated in a community service elective course that implemented the Building Decision Skills curriculum. Class instruction had the students working in large and small groups with homework assigned after each of 10 lessons. The lessons were taught during the first two weeks of the semester. The community service component, integrated with the Building Decision Skills curriculum, involved two days a week off-campus and two days on-campus participating in school and community service activities, such as providing companionship to residents of a retirement home or running a recycling center on campus.
The comparison group was drawn from senior English literature classes at the same high school as the intervention group. Comparison group students did not participate in Building Decision Skills or the community service course.
Students responded to a study-specific questionnaire that included three ethical dilemmas for which their responses were scored on ethical awareness, ethical responsibility, and ethical perspective. Additional measures were used to assess students’ self-esteem in social settings (Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale), their sense of social responsibility in school and in society, and their anticipation of future community participation (Newmann and Rutter’s Moral-Political Awareness Scale). (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of the outcome measures.)
No information on teacher training was provided.
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