Meyers, Coby V.; Molefe, Ayrin; Brandt, W. Christopher; Zhu, Bo; Dhillon, Sonica (2016). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v38 n3 p455-476. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1108395
Reviewed: March 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for eMINTS Comprehensive Program.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Mathematics scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 3 report);
|
0.08 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Mathematics scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 1 report);
|
-0.23 |
-0.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Mathematics scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 2 report);
|
-0.04 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Communication arts scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 3 report);
|
0.05 |
0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Communication arts scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 1 report);
|
-0.77 |
-0.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Missouri Assessment Program: Communication arts scores |
eMINTS Comprehensive Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7 and 8 (Year 2 report);
|
-0.08 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 95% |
The study was conducted in 39 rural, high-poverty schools in Missouri in grades 7 and 8. Eligible schools were in rural areas and were either Title I schools or had a majority of students who were eligible for the free- or reduced-price meal program.
The 39 schools in the analytic sample included at least 2,079 students in grades 7 and 8. About 58% of students were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch, less than 1% were limited English proficient, and 12% had an individual education plan. Fifty-one percent were male and 95% were White.
The eMINTS Comprehensive Program aims to help teachers improve their practice and the outcomes of their students by offering structured professional development, coaching, and support for integrating technology into the classroom. The program’s goals include supporting teachers in using classroom technology to implement high-quality, inquiry-based learning, in which students develop understanding and knowledge of content matter by engaging in meaningful investigations that require reasoning, judgement, and decision making. The intervention can provide support to teachers in any subject area, including math, literacy, and science. Over 2 school years, teachers in the intervention group were offered the eMINTS program with approximately 240 hours of online and in-person professional learning and support, which included 46 sessions of sequenced professional learning and approximately 10 in-classroom coaching and mentoring visits. Teachers had access to additional online and in-person learning opportunities and resources designed to support high-quality instruction and student assessment. Teachers worked individually and collaboratively with eMINTS instructional specialists and others in the training to complete learning activities, such as creating lesson plans and a class website. Additionally, a technology coordinator in each school was trained to support technology integration in eMINTS teachers’ classrooms.
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not receive the eMINTS program. Teachers may have received other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
The eMINTS professional development was facilitated by trained eMINTS staff supported by staff at the eMINTS National Center who monitored and supervised program delivery. Study authors conducted a study of implementation and found that the professional development and essential technology resources and guidance needed to support the eMINTS program in study schools were delivered as designed.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Brandt, C., Meyers, C., & Molefe, A. (2013). The impact of eMINTS professional development on teacher instruction and student achievement: Year 1 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Meyers, Coby; Molefe, Ayrin; Brandt, Chris. (2015). The Impact of the "Enhancing Missouri's Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies" (eMINTS) Program on Student Achievement, 21st-Century Skills, and Academic Engagement--Second-Year Results. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Meyers, C., Molefe, A., Dhillon, S., & Zhu, B. (2015). The impact of eMINTS professional development on teacher instruction and student achievement: Year 3 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
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