Allen, Joseph P.; Hafen, Christopher A.; Gregory, Anne C.; Mikami, Amori Y.; Pianta, Robert (2015). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v8 n4 p475-489. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1078792
Reviewed: October 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Commonwealth of Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests |
My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MPT-S) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 58% | |
| White | 31% |
| Hispanic | 9% |
The study took place in five schools in an urban district in Virginia. The schools were middle schools or high schools. Schools had between 1,120 and 1,900 students.
Teachers in the intervention group had on average 10.2 years of teaching experience, while the teachers in the control group had 8.6 years of experience. 81.8% of teachers in the intervention group had a master's degree or higher, while in the comparison group, 78.% did. 59.1% of the intervention teachers were female, while 70.7% of the comparison teachers were female. 46.6% of students in the intervention group were male, while 49.1% of students in the comparison group were male. 37.2% of students in the intervention group were from families <200% of the poverty line, while in the comparison group 37.2% were. The intervention group was 1.2% Asian, 59.3% African American, 9.3% Hispanic, and 30.2% white, while the comparison group was 3.9% Asian, 56.5% African American, 8.6% Hispanic, and 31.0% White.
Participants from both conditions attended a three-hour workshop before the start of the new school year during which teachers chose their focal class (i.e., their most academically challenging class that would have SOL data available), and learned about the consent process and how the data would be collected. Teachers in the intervention group attended an extended workshop with master teacher coaches. Teachers learned about the principles of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) program, which are derived from the CLASS-S (Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary). They discussed the theory behind the program as well as watched videos of teachers using the principles. Several coaching cycles (about every 6 weeks) were scheduled where teachers videotaped their own classrooms and the master teacher coaches created video segments of relevant (CLASS-S dimensions) teaching practices and posted them on the internet for the teacher to consider their own behavior in the video clip and how it was effecting students. The teacher and master teacher coach then discussed improving teacher-student relationships and engaging all students.
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual comparison condition. Participants from both conditions attended a three-hour workshop before the start of the new school year during which teachers chose their focal class (i.e., their most academically challenging class that would have SOL data available), and learned about the consent process and how the data would be collected.
Each teacher was randomly assigned to a master teacher coach who aided them during the school year. Part of the intervention was coaching cycles that occurred about every 6 weeks. Teachers and master teacher coaches examined teachers' coaching and discussed ways that teachers could improve their use of the principles.
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