Gnedko-Berry, N., Houghton, S., Park, S.J., Feng, L., & Borman, T. (2018). Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. https://www.internationalsnetwork.org/projectrise/.
Reviewed: December 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school graduation |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 2+ years treatment;
|
86.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High school graduation |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 1 year treatment;
|
44.00 |
46.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English proficiency test for ELLs |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 2+ years of treatment;
|
0.25 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
English proficiency test for ELLs |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 1 year treatment;
|
0.05 |
0.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Achievement in mathematics |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 2+ years treatment;
|
0.14 |
0.26 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Achievement in mathematics |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 1 year treatment;
|
0.47 |
0.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school credit accumulation |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 2+ years intervention;
|
150.02 |
138.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 2+ years treatment;
|
0.91 |
0.88 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attendance |
Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (Project RISE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample with 1 year treatment;
|
0.85 |
0.85 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 31% | |
| Black | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 44% | |
| White | 23% |
| Hispanic | 44% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 56% |
The Project RISE study involves 11 high schools (2 intervention schools and 9 comparison schools) from two large urban school districts. The two intervention high schools are comprehensive high schools identified by the districts as persistently low performing.
All students in the analytic sample are English learners. The analytic sample for the intervention group included 36.8% female students. The students identified as Hispanic (43.6%), Asian (30.8%), White (22.6%), and Black (2.6%). Sixty-nine percent of students qualified for free/reduced priced lunch (FRPL). The analytic sample for the comparison group had between 66 and 486 students, and percent of students qualified for FRPL ranged from 69% to 93%.
Project Realizing Instructional Supports for English Language Learners (RISE) provides professional development and ongoing instructional support to teachers and school leaders. The aim of Project RISE is to improve the educational outcomes of English learners (ELs) in Grades 9–12 by changing teachers’ instructional practices and key structures in which students and teachers are organized. This is achieved by establishing: (1) collaborative interdisciplinary teaching teams responsible for (2) shared heterogeneous groups of ELs that foster instructional practices which (3) integrate instruction of language and content using (4) collaborative experiential projects across the curriculum. Professional development consisted of a summer institute, and ongoing support was provided by an instructional coach at each site who was hired and trained for this intervention. Project RISE was implemented during school years 2013–14 through 2016–17.
The comparison schools implemented their standard EL instruction that was not Project RISE. Teachers likely taught as they had in the past.
Project RISE staff consulted with the school principal and instructional leadership coach throughout the program period to monitor, support, and adjust program implementation. As part of the intervention, teachers in the intervention group also received professional development in the summer and ongoing instructional support through coaching and the creation of interdisciplinary teaching teams.
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