Horowitz, R. (2016). New York, NY: Columbia University.
Reviewed: November 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State Alternative Assessment (Reading) |
Everyday Arts for Special Education (EASE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State Alternative Assessment (Math) |
Everyday Arts for Special Education (EASE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The setting of the study was 8 district 75 schools in New York City. District 75 is an organizational structure across the entire city that encompasses students who require special services (not a geographical district). The intervention occurred in 28 sites. There were 18 comparison sites. Teachers received the training intervention through a series of professional development workshops and extensive in-school support.The 'EASE' schools were 'sites' within many schools that included students with 4 categories of disabilities (i.e. emotional disturbance, autism spectrum, intellectual disabilities, and multiple disabilities).
Students in the study were all from one of 10 schools within the New York City District 75 public schools. District 75 is an organizational structure across the entire city that encompasses student who require special services (it is not a geographical district). All of the students in the sample were in one of the following categories of disabilities: autism spectrum, emotional disturbance, intellectual disabilities, and multiple disabilities. Among the 23,000 students within all of District 75, 71% were eligible for Title I support, 86% were from minority populations, 15% were English Language Learners, and 60% were assessed on New York State alternate academic achievement standards.
The treatment group included teachers of students with disabilities, who received a series of extensive professional development workshops in learning strategies across multiple arts disciplines, including music, dance, visual arts, and theater. There were four key program components: 1) full-day professional development workshops where teachers and administrators meet with teaching artists for full-day workshops, 2) collaborative classroom modeling where teaching artists collaborate with teachers in the classroom to implement curricula, 3) on-site professional development where teaching artists conduct 45-minute on-site sessions with teachers, and 4) classroom instruction where teachers address an Individual Education Plan (IEP) goal through use of an EASE activity.
Students in the comparison condition were from some the same schools within District 75. The comparison condition received 'business-as-usual' and were not exposed to any EASE program activities.
Five cohorts of teachers were involved in the training. In year one, teachers received beginner level support. In year two, teachers received intermediate level of support. In year 3, teachers received advanced level support. In years 4 and 5, selected teachers became mentors. At the beginner level, teachers learned to implement the intervention with extensive support from teaching artists. This included four full-day workshops per teacher, 20 in-class teaching artist visits per class, and twenty 45 minute sessions of onsite professional development per teacher. At the intermediate level, teachers implemented the intervention with new students, taking more responsibility from teaching artists. This stage included 2 full-day workshops per teacher, 16 in-class teaching artists visits per class, and sixteen 45-minute sessions per teacher. At the advanced level, teachers implemented the intervention with new students and required minimal support from teaching artists. Teacher ratings were submitted weekly for 23 weeks. Teachers were also asked to provide qualitative examples of behaviors that indicated progress in each indicator. The assessments were conducted online using ArtsResearch software, which was developed to expedite timely responses by teachers. The teachers, who had the best understanding of the students’ disabilities, determined progress in each area. Teachers also received professional development in developing criteria and rating students.
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