Portes, Pedro R.; González Canché, Manuel; Boada, Diego; Whatley, Melissa E. (2018). American Educational Research Journal, v55 n3 p488-531. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1180090
Reviewed: February 2020
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) - Math |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English learners, grade 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 95% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 5% |
The study was conducted in 22 schools within 14 school districts in one Southeastern state. (p. 14)
The overall study included students in grades 3 and 5. About half (51 percent) of the students in the study were English learners. Fifty-one percent of students enrolled in the study were female. Most (95 percent) of the English learners were Hispanic. (pp. 12, 14)
The intervention condition is Instructional Conversations, a practice for teachers to implement to facilitate conversations among students. In these conversations, the teacher guides discussions and models academic language and English use with a clear instructional goal in mind. These conversations occur for approximately 20 minutes, once or twice weekly, and include the teacher and between two and seven students. Teachers were asked to incorporate Instructional Conversations in all content areas and integrate vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and reading comprehension during science, math, and social studies instruction. Instructional Conversations is one of five standards from a pedagogical framework for making teaching and learning meaningful that was designed by the Center for Research on Excellence and Diversity in Education (CREDE). (p. 4, 15)
Teachers in the comparison condition continued business-as-usual instructional practices. (p. 15)
The intervention teachers underwent a 100-hour professional development program. Trained coaches worked with teachers for two years, including a practice year and the year of study implementation. The coaches provided support and feedback and monitored teachers' implementation of Instructional Conversations and their instructional practices every month during the practice year. (p. 15)
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