Zoblotsky, Todd; Bertz, Christine; Gallagher, Brenda; Alberg, Marty (2016). Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED617223
Reviewed: July 2021
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 Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
58.81 |
53.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
66.39 |
64.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
66.55 |
65.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
3798.80 |
3761.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
85.08 |
84.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
435.80 |
434.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
255.10 |
255.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5;
|
568.20 |
578.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
323.02 |
327.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
252.40 |
254.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
555.90 |
599.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8;
|
3734.20 |
3889.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: IEP;
|
59.96 |
52.72 |
Yes |
|
||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 IEP;
|
3629.90 |
3460.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: ELL;
|
44.48 |
36.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: ELL;
|
63.55 |
58.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: FRL;
|
55.26 |
49.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 ELL;
|
253.04 |
247.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Female;
|
61.40 |
56.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: IEP;
|
390.08 |
369.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: ELL;
|
62.38 |
58.05 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Male;
|
55.90 |
51.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: IEP;
|
41.02 |
37.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: IEP;
|
55.97 |
51.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Female ;
|
3782.00 |
3709.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: FRL;
|
63.95 |
61.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 ELL;
|
3749.40 |
3691.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Non FRL;
|
63.54 |
59.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: FRL;
|
63.69 |
61.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: FRL;
|
63.69 |
61.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Male;
|
65.54 |
63.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Non FRL;
|
466.07 |
459.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Female;
|
68.21 |
66.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Male;
|
64.61 |
62.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 IEP;
|
444.70 |
421.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Non FRL;
|
4090.70 |
3999.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 FRL;
|
3749.20 |
3715.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: ELL;
|
405.64 |
400.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Constructed response |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Non FRL;
|
70.39 |
69.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Female;
|
67.57 |
66.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Male;
|
436.30 |
432.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Male;
|
3820.00 |
3813.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Non FRL;
|
679.70 |
676.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Performance Task |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Non FRL;
|
70.24 |
70.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 ELL;
|
252.40 |
252.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 FRL;
|
254.20 |
253.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: IEP;
|
70.28 |
70.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Non FRL;
|
364.67 |
364.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: FRL;
|
415.85 |
418.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5: Female;
|
435.33 |
437.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Female ;
|
565.80 |
569.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Male;
|
256.30 |
257.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Female;
|
330.93 |
332.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 FRL ;
|
252.05 |
253.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 FRL;
|
549.40 |
562.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Male;
|
572.00 |
585.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Male;
|
314.88 |
321.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Open Ended |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: Non FRL;
|
88.91 |
89.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 IEP;
|
273.86 |
275.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Female ;
|
250.45 |
252.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 ELL;
|
546.70 |
560.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 Non FRL;
|
256.10 |
256.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: FRL;
|
293.04 |
300.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Male;
|
254.37 |
256.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 5 IEP;
|
265.50 |
269.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Male;
|
3800.50 |
3885.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Female ;
|
550.20 |
585.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Non FRL;
|
253.01 |
255.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 FRL;
|
547.50 |
594.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Partnership for the Assessment of Standards-based Science (PASS): Multiple Choice |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8: IEP;
|
217.99 |
252.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Science test |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 FRL;
|
3713.80 |
3874.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test: Science |
Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade 8 Male;
|
560.00 |
617.90 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 19% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 46% | |
| White | 31% |
| Hispanic | 44% |
The study took place during science instruction in 116 elementary and middle schools in 16 school districts in northern New Mexico, central and western North Carolina, and the Houston Independent School District (HISD) in Texas. Students were in grades 3 or 6 at the start of the 3-year study and in grades 5 or 8 when outcomes were measured.
The analytic sample included a total of 116 schools (62 in the intervention group, 54 in the comparison group) and 6,291 students (3,374 in the intervention group, 2,917 in the comparison group). The elementary school cohort with 4,123 students was followed from the start of grade 3 to the end of grade 5. The middle school cohort with 2,168 students was followed from the start of grade 6 to the end of grade 8. The study authors reported gender, race, and ethnicity for all students in the districts with participating schools and other sample characteristics for students in the analytic sample. Across the 16 districts with participating schools, 50% of students were female, 44% of students were Hispanic, 31% were White, 19% were Black, 3% were American Indian/Alaska Native, 2% were Asian, and for 46% race was not specified. Among students in the analytic sample, 59% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 18% were English learners (ELs), and 9% had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
The Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) program is designed to build capacity for effectively implementing inquiry-based science curricula in schools and districts. When participating in LASER, school or district teams attend leadership development institutes to plan the implementation of inquiry-based science curricula. These school or district teams receive support for key aspects of implementation such as professional development for teachers, access to instructional materials, and support for selecting appropriate assessments. LASER also helps schools and districts partner with scientists, science educators, and local business and community leaders who can promote and further support the implementation of inquiry-based science instruction. Schools in the intervention group implemented LASER over a 3-year period. Leadership teams composed of state and local education agency leaders, school administrators, teachers, parents, and representatives from local government, business, and community organizations in each state participated in an initial 1-day Building Awareness for STEM Education Institute. Next, leadership teams representing the intervention schools in each participating district attended a week-long Leadership Development and Strategic Planning Institute and developed strategic plans to implement LASER’s five elements of inquiry-based science education. Once inquiry-based science instruction was underway in intervention schools, leadership teams that wanted additional support participated in an Implementation Institute to focus on particular implementation challenges. As a condition of participation in the study, schools in the intervention group were required to use the Smithsonian Science Education Center’s (SSEC) Science and Technology Concepts (STC™) inquiry-based science curriculum as their sole science curriculum over the three-year study period. Data from teachers’ logs indicated that they implemented one unit from October to June of the first year (2011-2012) and two units in the second year, one in the fall of 2012 and the other in the spring of 2013. For the third year of the study (2013-2014), schools were asked to implement three units, but some schools did not complete the third unit before the end of the school year. The authors provided this information about how STC™ was implemented in response to a WWC author query. Teachers in intervention schools participated in two types of professional development per unit: an introductory training in which they practiced instructional strategies with SSEC-provided lesson plans, and an intermediate training focused on deepening teachers’ understanding of the relevant science content. A regional coordinator worked with teachers and school administrators to help resolve implementation challenges.
Schools in the comparison group did not participate in LASER, and were required to use their business-as-usual science curricula, which could not be STC™. The authors reported in response to a WWC author query that some schools in the comparison group used selected components of units from the Full Option Science System™ (FOSS), another inquiry-based science curriculum, as part of teacher-created or supplemental instructional materials during the study period, but that this usage did not appear systematic. Using data from surveys of teachers and principals, teacher instructional logs, and classroom observations, the authors reported that students in the comparison schools were less often engaged in inquiry-based science learning activities than those in the intervention schools; teachers in comparison schools felt less prepared than those in intervention schools to use inquiry-based teaching methods and to assess student science learning; and principals in comparison schools reported that they received lower levels of support for implementing inquiry-based science instruction than those in the intervention schools.
No additional information reported.
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.
Alberg, Marty. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 1: Executive Summary. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Burgette, John; Muzzi, Cindy; Lee, Laura; Niemeier, Brian. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systematic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 7: Case Studies. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Kaldon, Carolyn R.; Zoblotsky, Todd A. (2014). A Randomized Controlled Trial Validating the Impact of the LASER Model of Science Education on Student Achievement and Teacher Instruction. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
McSparrin-Gallagher, Brenda; Tang, Yun; Niemeier, Brian; Zoblotsky, Todd. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systematic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 3: PASS Assessments Multiple Choice. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Rowe, Michael; Bertz, Christine. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 2: Overview. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Executive Summary. Smithsonian Science Education Center.
. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Regional Highlights: New Mexico. Smithsonian Science Education Center.
. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Regional Highlights: North Carolina. Smithsonian Science Education Center.
. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Regional Highlights: Houston Independent School District. Smithsonian Science Education Center.
Tang, Yun; Zoblotsky, Todd. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systematic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 4: PASS Assessments Open Ended and Performance Task. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Tang, Yun; Zoblotsky, Todd. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systematic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 5: Student Attitudes. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Tang, Yun; Zoblotsky, Todd. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systematic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Summative Report Section 6: State Assessments. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Zoblotsky, Todd; Bertz, Christine; Gallagher, Brenda; Alberg, Marty. (2017). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. SSEC i3 Validation Final Report of Confirmatory and Exploratory Analyses [Updated]. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
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