Pyke, C., Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Szesze, M., & Watson, W. (2004). Washington, DC: George Washington University, SCALE-uP.
Reviewed: May 2012
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 Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Grade 6: Cohort 3;
|
56.09 |
50.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Grade 6: Cohort 1;
|
60.91 |
57.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Grade 6: Cohort 2;
|
53.76 |
55.42 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Cohort 1, Female;
|
54.21 |
53.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Cohort 1, Hispanic;
|
46.74 |
47.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Motion and Forces Assessment |
Astronomy Resources for Intercurricular Elementary Science (ARIES): Exploring Motion and Forces vs. Business as usual |
1997-1999 |
Cohort 1, SPED;
|
42.69 |
48.26 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 14% | |
| Black | 22% | |
| White | 46% |
| Hispanic | 18% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 82% |
The study took place in 20 schools in Maryland’s Montgomery County School District (10 schools for Cohorts 1 and 2 and 10 schools for Cohort 3).The student population of this large suburban district is 43% White, 22% African American, 14% Asian American, and 20% Hispanic. Self-contained classrooms of English language learners and special education students were excluded from this study. The study is part of a multiyear research project called “Scaling Up Curriculum for Achievement, Learning, and Equity Project” (SCALE-uP).
In this randomized study, researchers followed three cohorts of sixth-grade students. A sampling frame of five school-profile categories was created based on achievement and demographic factors. Each profile contained approximately seven schools. The authors randomly selected two schools from each of the five profiles, and one school from each pair was randomly selected to implement ARIES: Exploring Motion and Forces. Cohorts 1 and 2 were sixth-grade students from the same set of implementing and non-implementing schools. For the analysis of Cohort 3, researchers excluded schools in the previous analyses and repeated the randomization scheme on the remaining schools. Cohorts 1 and 2 consisted of sixth-grade students in the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years, respectively. The Cohort 1 analysis sample included 1,266 sixth-grade students who received the intervention and 1,115 sixth-grade students who did not receive the intervention. Cohort 2 included 910 sixth-grade students who received the intervention and 1,005 who did not receive the intervention. For these cohorts, students were randomly dropped from each of the matched pairs of schools to create balanced sample sizes across schools. Cohort 3 consisted of sixth-grade students in the 2005–06 school year and included 902 students who received the intervention and 860 students who did not receive the intervention. Overall and differential attrition rates for Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 were low. Students’ outcomes were presented by cohort; these findings can be found in Appendix C. Additional findings for subgroups by gender, race/ethnicity, and students eligible for Special Education (SPED) can be found in Appendix D.
Exploring Motion and Forces: Speed, Acceleration, and Friction (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 2001) is an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum that received an acceptable rating by the American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061, a curriculum analysis project funded by the Interagency Educational Research Initiative of the National Science Foundation. ARIES: Exploring Motion and Forces, a six-week physical science unit, is intended for fifth- to eighth-grade students and is broken into four parts and 18 “explorations.” Its focus is on inquiry-centered and activity-based student-centered material. The materials contain a teacher manual, a student science journal, and exploration materials. Cohort 3 students also received a 114-page notebook. The same notebook was given to teachers in the first two cohorts, with the expectation that the pages would be copied and distributed to students. The material covered in ARIES: Exploring Motion and Forces was aligned with the district’s sixth-grade curriculum standards, but it did not cover all of the topics. The unit was implemented over a period of approximately six weeks.
Comparison group teachers used regular curriculum materials normally available to Montgomery County Public Schools’ teachers that addressed the same target benchmarks. There was no single comparison group curriculum, and teachers were not restricted to any specific material. In the final report only, for Cohort 3, Pyke et al. (2006) clarified that teachers in the comparison group used a wide variety of sources, including textbooks, handouts, the Internet, and videos.
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the Motion and Forces Assessment (MFA), which consisted of six constructed responses and four selected responses. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
The study does not discuss the training of teachers.
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.
Rethinam, V., Pyke, C., & Lynch, S. (2008). Using multi-level analyses to study the effectiveness of science curriculum materials. Evaluation & Research in Education, 21(1), 18–42.
Pyke, C., Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Szesze, M., & Watson, W. (2005). Implementation study of Exploring Motion and Forces (2004–2005) (SCALE-uP Report No. 8). Washington, DC: George Washington University, SCALE-uP.
Pyke, C., Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Szesze, M., & Watson, B. (2006). Implementation study of Exploring Motion and Forces (2005–2006) (SCALE-uP Report No. 13). Washington, DC: George Washington University, SCALE-uP.
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