Rothman, Terri; Henderson, Mary (2011). RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, v34 n6 p1-10. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925246
Reviewed: March 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA): Language arts score |
After school tutoring program for eighth grade students vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA): Mathematics score |
After school tutoring program for eighth grade students vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 33% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 35% |
The study took place in an Abbott-designated (low SES, large population of disadvantaged students, "excessive municipal taxes," etc.) middle school in urban, central New Jersey. It was the only middle school in a district with one high school and three elementary schools.
The sample consisted of students who were designated as "borderline" (scoring between 180-199 on the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge). In the middle school from which the sample came from, 60% of students were eligible for free/reduced lunch, 35% were Latino, 33% were African American, and 32% were Caucasian. Approximately 30% were non-native English speakers, although only 5% met the definition of limited English proficiency. Ages ranged from 13 to 15. The intervention group consisted of 43 students: 12 were Caucasian, 13 were Latino, and 18 were African American. The comparison group consisted of 37 students: 8 were Caucasian, 15 were Latino, and 14 were African American.
Tutoring was targeted to students who were in the near-passing range of the seventh grade math or language arts New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge. The tutoring was provided by 11 tutors, who were teachers in the district perceived as being effective (e.g., students earned higher test scores and had few disciplinary referrals). Each tutor tutored a group of approximately four students. The tutors used the Preparing for the New Jersey GEPA curriculum and were trained to use Standards Solutions test-taking strategies. Tutors attended regular meetings and provided weekly progress reports. Tutoring sessions occurred after school on two afternoons every week (from October to March) and lasted for 90-minutes each. In total, each student received 48 hours of tutoring. Attendance was incentivized (e.g., pizza parties for perfect attendance).
The comparison condition did not receive any tutoring and continued with their usual after school activities.
The study supported implementation of the tutoring program through regular tutor meetings so that tutors could discuss content or other difficulties that they were having. The researchers also created a checklist to aid in future implementation.
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