Nagle, Katherine; Pratt-Williams, Jaunelle; Schmidt, Rebecca; Swantek, Cara; Lyulchenko, Marianna; McGhee, Raymond (2016). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579268
Reviewed: May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Virginia Standards of Learning: Algebra |
Rural Math Excel Partnership (RMEP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
-0.19 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 48% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 45% |
This study took place in 28 middle and high schools from 12 rural county school Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in southern Virginia. These LEAs were representative of the rural Virginia areas identified as lacking a workforce qualified for advanced STEM courses and careers. Training targeted math teachers in these LEAs. Students who were enrolled in a block-scheduled Algebra I, Geometry, or Algebra II course were eligible for the study.
The authors did not provide any information regarding sample characteristics for the sample of students, but they did provide demographic information for all schools and grades in the study LEAs based on reports from prior school years. One-fourth of the students were from families living below the poverty line. Forty-eight percent were Black and 45 percent were White.
The goal of the Rural Math Excel Partnership (RMEP) Project was to prepare students to be successful in advanced high school and postsecondary STEM studies by developing and implementing a model of shared responsibility among families, teachers, and communities in rural areas. This, in turn, would prepare students to at least enroll in a certificate program for a technician-level career in STEM-related fields after high school. The RMEP Project includes six core implementation activities. The first component is to conduct a gap analysis to assess gaps between essential math workforce competencies and the Virginia math SOLs. A Math Advanced Study (MAS) guide is developed based on the results of the these analyses. The second component includes teacher professional development and ongoing coaching. In addition, Khan Academy videos are incorporated into homework assignments. The third component is a Family Math Night, where participating teachers plan the events and hold at least one (but preferably two) Family Math Nights each year for each school. The fourth component includes a project website and social media presence to serve as resources to teachers, students, and families. The fifth component is an annual STEM career event, planned and hosted by members of the community. The sixth component is to provide access to computers and technology support for students. The implementation team works with the school principal and district technology staff to ensure that all students and families have access to the necessary technology. This access includes providing tablets and internet to families without existing access and allowing students to complete online videos through the MARi website.
Comparison LEAs were identified using propensity score matching and continued business as usual during the course of the study.
Teachers were provided with professional development and ongoing coaching.
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