Ottmar, Erin R.; Rimm-Kaufman, Sara E.; Berry, Robert Q.; Larsen, Ross A. (2013). Elementary School Journal, v113 n3 p434-457. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1013947
Reviewed: November 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading achievement |
Responsive Classroom vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
492.30 |
501.21 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math achievement |
Responsive Classroom vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
526.31 |
534.45 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 19% | |
| Black | 11% | |
| Other or unknown | 29% | |
| White | 41% |
| Hispanic | 24% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 76% |
This study was conducted in 24 elementary schools in a Virginia school district.
Teachers (95 taught third grade, 92 taught fourth grade, and 89 taught fifth grade) were predominantly female (90%) and had, on average, 10 years of experience. Teachers were predominantly White (84%). Students were about evenly split in terms of sex (49% female) and almost one-third (32%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The sample included students who were White (41%), Black (11%), Asian (19%), Hispanic (24%), and other (5%). Schools identified 28 percent of the students as English language learners.
The Responsive Classroom (RC) approach is intended to help teachers create a supportive and safe environment for learning that reduces students' anxiety and increases their feelings of self-efficacy. In this case, the aim was to improve teachers' mathematics teaching practices but also develop classroom practices that support students' social and emotional learning. These practices are intended to be implemented throughout the day, and not just as part of particular lessons. Nine key practices are implemented over 2 years. The first year includes Morning Meeting, Rule Creation, Interactive Modeling, Positive Teacher Language, and Logical Consequences. The second year consists of Guided Discovery, Academic Choice, Classroom Organization, and Collaborative Problem Solving.
The comparison condition was business as usual, which used a combination of textbooks and implemented the district testing frameworks and pacing guides to direct instruction. Teachers in this condition may still have used community building techniques, may have set clear behavioral expectations, and may also have used a guided discovery approach to teaching mathematics (guided discovery is not unique to RC).
Teachers received training in the RC approach that included two 1-week training sessions over two consecutive summers. Teachers received 3 days of school-based coaching and opportunities to engage in three RC workshops during each school year subsequent to training. They also received RC manuals, two additional RC books, on-demand support (in person and through email) from coaches, and articles on the RC website. Administrators received training and three sessions per year of administrator coaching led by the developer, Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC). NEFC consultants also met with each administrator for a planned meeting in fall and spring. Each school received a full set of RC books for their library.
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