Wang, Jia; Herman, Joan L.; Epstein, Scott; Leon, Seth; La Torre, Deborah; Bozeman, Velette (2020). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED605029
Reviewed: August 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 Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) - English Language Arts (ELA) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 4-8;
|
0.04 |
-0.03 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) - English Language Arts (ELA) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 6-8;
|
0.07 |
-0.03 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) - English Language Arts (ELA) |
Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 4-5;
|
0.02 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 4% | |
| Other or unknown | 92% | |
| White | 3% |
| Hispanic | 91% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 9% |
This study took place in 137 elementary and middle schools in a large urban school district on the West Coast of the United States with students in grades 4 through 8. The study included English language arts, social studies, and science classrooms in the middle schools.
The 7,958 students in elementary and middle schools—3,979 in each condition—were taught by 89 teachers in 26 schools in the intervention group and 1,015 teachers in 111 schools in the comparison group. The sample breakdown between elementary and middle schools is not described. Approximately half the students were male, 69% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 19% were English learners, and 8% were eligible for special education. Ninety-one percent of the students were Hispanic or Latino, 4% were non-Hispanic Black, 3% were non-Hispanic White, and 1% were non-Hispanic Asian.
Literacy Design Collaborative aims to help teachers improve their effectiveness in the classroom with a focus on supporting their literacy instruction. Literacy Design Collaborative provides professional development, coaching, and resources to support teachers to work collaboratively in their schools to create and use high-quality literacy instruction materials aimed at improving students’ reading, research, and writing skills. Teachers across content areas—including English language arts, social studies, and science—can use the Literacy Design Collaborative program. Intervention group schools began implementing Literacy Design Collaborative in the first cohort in the 2016–17 school year. A second cohort of schools participated starting in the 2017–18 school year. Participating teachers were expected to develop at least one instructional module aligned with English language arts standards to use in their classroom in the school year, provide instruction using at least two modules per year, and participate in at least 60 minutes of planning time in a professional learning community every 2 weeks. In addition, participating teachers were expected to receive feedback and support from a Literacy Design Collaborative coach remotely during learning community time, and through peer review comments on their instructional modules through the online CoreTools library. The authors do not describe the implementation experience of the sample of teachers in this study.
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not participate in Literacy Design Collaborative. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Coaches worked directly with one or more teacher-leaders trained in each school to support implementation. Coaches and teacher-leaders worked together to structure learning community time and coaching support for other teachers in their schools. Literacy Design Collaborative staff also trained school administrators and district instructional specialists to support implementation, observe classroom instruction, and attend learning community sessions.
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