Askew, Karyl; Stevenson, Olivia; Jones, Bridget (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED591365
Reviewed: April 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NC state standardized math assessment |
Infusing Innovative STEM Practices Into Rigorous Education (INSPIRE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Discovery ED math score |
Infusing Innovative STEM Practices Into Rigorous Education (INSPIRE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
0.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NC state standardized science assessment scores |
Infusing Innovative STEM Practices Into Rigorous Education (INSPIRE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
-0.01 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 19% | |
| White | 57% |
| Hispanic | 14% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 86% |
The study includes two sub-studies: one focused on elementary schools and one on secondary schools. Both studies took place in North Carolina. Study 1: The study took place in two STEM intervention elementary schools in North Carolina, Coltrane-Webb Elementary and Patriots Elementary, and four comparison elementary schools without a STEM program. The two intervention schools were Title I schools that served the most ethnically diverse students in the district. Study 2: The study took place in one middle school and one high school in North Carolina: J.N. Fries Middle School or Central Cabarrus High School (CCHS).
The students served by the four intervention schools across the two studies were 20% Black, 4% Asian, 57% white, 14% Hispanic, and 5% other races. Twenty-nine percent were low-income.
The intervention schools received the Infusing Innovative STEM Practices Into Rigorous Education (INSPIRE ) program, which aims to improve STEM education in K-12. Elementary students received the intervention for three years, and secondary students received the intervention for two years. Rather than piecemeal STEM education or a sequence of STEM courses, the INSPIRE program offered an integrated K-12 pipeline approach. It included four strategies: 1. personalized tech-enabled instructional practices; 2. student real-world tethers (connections beyond the classroom, e.g. field trips and NASA summer camp); 3. high quality teacher development and support; and 4. problem-based learning.
Comparison schools implemented STEM instruction as usual. Teachers likely taught as they had in the past.
Teachers in the intervention group participated in virtual professional learning communities (PLCs), professional development focused on integrating technology in the classroom, and on-site coaching from technology facilitators.
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