Jaciw, Andrew P.; Schellinger, Adam M.; Lin, Li; Zacamy, Jenna; Toby, Megan (2016). Empirical Education Inc. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570998
Reviewed: November 2022
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 Reading Apprenticeship®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Educational Testing Service (ETS) Global Integrated Scenario-Based Assessment for Biology |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
0.02 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 16% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 73% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 52% | |
| No FRPL | 48% |
The study took place in 26 high schools in Michigan and Pennsylvania in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. The intervention was delivered in science classrooms in grades 9–12.
The researchers randomly assigned 41 teachers to the intervention group and 41 teachers to the comparison group. A total of 1,315 students in grades 9–12 were included in the study. The 1,315 students were in 26 high schools. Approximately 50% of the students were male, 52% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 2% were English learners, and 16% were reported as having a disability or receiving special education services. Seventy-three percent were White, 16% were Black, 1% were Asian, and 10% did not report race. Eight percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Internet-based Reading Apprenticeship Improving Science Education (iRAISE) is a learning community in which high school science teachers learn about, practice, and refine ways to improve student engagement and comprehension of scientific texts. iRAISE is a year-long, virtual adaptation of the face-to-face RAISE professional development program, both of which are versions of the Reading Apprenticeship program. Participating teachers receive a total of 65 hours of professional development. During the summer before the classroom implementation teachers receive a foundations training for 5 days (about 20 hours). Training continues throughout the school year with monthly meetings in two forms: 2-hour whole group meetings for introducing new learning and 1-hour small group meetings for collaboration and discussion. During the school year, teachers incorporate specific pedological practices into their science instruction that are intended to engage students in metacognitive conversations that build their knowledge about science.
Teachers in the comparison group delivered business-as-usual science instruction in their respective grade levels. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
During the school year prior to the study, the study team piloted the iRAISE program with a group of 25 teachers in Michigan and Pennsylvania, several of whom had previously attended the face-to-face RAISE training. The pilot included a formative evaluation to provide feedback on program components. During the study, the study team observed all five days of the iRAISE foundations training; following the training, they administered online surveys to participants asking about the initial training. They also observed one Ignite session per month, chosen at random, from September through May. Following each observation, study staff coded the professional development content for adherence to the program model.
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.
Schellinger, Adam M.; Toby, Megan; Jaciw, Andrew P.; Zacamy, Jenna. (2015). Comparative Effectiveness of WestEd's iRAISE Professional Development: An Interim Report of a Randomized Experiment in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Empirical Education Inc.
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