Barnett, Joshua H.; Wills, Kellie C.; Kirby, Peggy C. (2014). National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED556325
Reviewed: February 2018
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
K-8 Assessment Index |
TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement vs. Unknown |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
78.63 |
76.79 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted using 132 (66 intervention and 66 comparison) elementary, middle, and combination (K-8) schools located in Louisiana.
The treatment and comparison groups were each comprised of 47 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, and 4 combination schools. The average percentage of students receiving free/reduced price lunch was approximately 86% in both the treatment and comparison schools. And the average number of students per school was 495 in the treatment and comparison schools.
The System for Teacher and Student Advancement (TAP) is an educator effectiveness model that uses on-going professional development delivered via local teachers, who serve in TAP schools as master and mentor teachers. TAP schools also use an evaluation rubric, performance-based compensation, and multiple career roles to improve educator effectiveness and, in turn, student achievement. Participating teachers have the opportunity to earn bonuses, based on observations of their skills, knowledge, and responsibilities, students' average growth, and the entire school's average growth. The TAP System schools have multiple measures of performance that provided feedback to teachers, in addition to a summative rating at the end of the year. TAP teachers participate in weekly cluster meetings, led by master and mentor teachers. Professional development also includes master teachers modeling lessons and observing classroom instruction.
The matched comparison condition did not implement TAP. The authors do not describe the comparison condition.
The Louisiana Department of Education received a TIF-3 grant in fall 2010 to implement TAP in 68 public schools.
Reviewed: February 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.
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