Sherman, Dan; Li, Yibing; Darwin, Marlene; Taylor, Suzanne; Song, Mengli (2017). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577450
Reviewed: October 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent Passing AP Exam |
National Math + Science Initiative (NMSI) College Readiness Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 53% |
Public high schools in Colorado and Indiana provided the setting for this study. The intervention was a schoolwide program, with an emphasis on Advanced Placement (AP) coursework in mathematics, science, and English. The first cohort implemented the intervention in 2012-13, with the second and third cohorts implementing the intervention in 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.
School baseline characteristics are outlines in tables 1, 2 and 3 seperately for each cohort, and pooled in Table 4. The treatment schools at baseline were 53.35% white, 52.53% eligible for RPL, had Grade 10 to 12 enrollment of 1,365, 12.48% took an AP exam in English, mathematics, or science, and 4.53% were passing those AP exams. The control schools at baseline were 52.90% white, 50.02% eligible for RPL, had Grade 10 to 12 enrollment of 1,319, 11.05% took an AP exam in English, mathematics, or science, and 4.20% were passing those AP exams.
The College Readiness Program provided teachers with content and pedagogy professional development, provided students with tutoring support in AP coursework, and offered financial incentives to both teachers and students. The program was designed to last three years in each intervention school. Professional development for teachers included content-specific workshops and the requirement that AP teachers attend College Board summer institutes. Teachers were also given access to live content experts and to online support materials. Student academic support was offered both as Saturday tutoring sessions and access to online homework support materials. Financial incentives to teachers were cash payments of $100 for each student who passed an AP exam and additional $1000 for reaching a targeted number of students passing an exam. Students received cash payments of $100 for each AP exam they passed.
Schools in the comparison condition maintained business as usual.
In addition to the teacher professional development and support resources that were a main part of the intervention, statewide coordinators provided program support to all intervention schools in each state. These coordinators worked to ease implementation and standardize the CRP in sites across the nation.
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.
Evidence Tier
The Department of Education’s evidence tiers. For more information, please see the WWC Glossary entry for evidence tiers.
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube