Project Activities
The researchers tested the impact of SNUDLE in students’ science content knowledge, science skills, and motivation for science using a randomized controlled trial. They also tested for moderation of student characteristics with subgroup analyses and tested for the mediation of mechanisms by which SNUDLE supports students in improving their science knowledge.
Structured Abstract
Setting
The study was conducted in seven elementary schools in Texas.
Sample
There were 36 4th grade teachers and their students participating in this efficacy study. Each class included approximately 20 students, including 3 students with learning disabilities. Approximately 33 teachers and their students participated in the initial quality assurance testing. Across the two cohorts, a total of 36 4th grade teachers were randomly assigned to SNUDLE or to a business-as-usual condition in seven elementary schools. The combined student sample was 902 4th grade students who were 44% Hispanic, 38% African American, 83% eligible for free lunch, and 6% on IEPs.
SNUDLE is an intervention that provides students with the space to collect, organize, and display their scientific observations as well as reflections and thoughts about their inquiry experiences. Teachers use the information as ongoing formative assessment and provide feedback to the students. The intervention also includes accessibility features such as text-to-speech technology, real-time highlighting, keyboard accessible actions, multimedia glossary, and word-by-word English-to-Spanish translation. In addition, the design incorporates pedagogy to support active science learning through conceptual anchors (words and pictures) and navigation structures (plan, get data, explain).
Research design and methods
Before the start of the efficacy trial, initial quality assurance testing was conducted to determine if any technology bug fixes were needed or if infrastructure support was needed to scale up the implementation of SNUDLE. The researchers used a randomized controlled trial to compare the outcomes of students in classes using the SNUDLE versus the traditional paper-based science notebooks. Teachers were randomly assigned to either the SNUDLE or the control condition in the first year, and the following year, their classes were assigned the opposite condition. Only students in classes assigned to the SNUDLE condition had logins to use the program. All teachers were trained in both SNUDLE and the traditional paper notebook methods. Data was collected to monitor contamination (use of intervention-related approaches with traditional paper notebook classes) and intervene as necessary. The researchers included a moderation and subgroup analysis in their design to determine if effect sizes are influenced by SNUDLE differentially for students with learning disabilities or other subgroups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, free and reduced lunch status).
Control condition
Students in the control condition used traditional paper-based science notebooks.
Key measures
Student outcome measures included measures of student characteristics—student record abstract (e.g., prior performance on state accountability tests and demographics). Two measures of science content learning were used: STEMscopes Unit Tests (aligned to curriculum and completed at the end of each unit), and NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP; broader measure of science knowledge). Fidelity was measured through a researcher-developed assessment, as well as data on dosage, adherence, and quality data gathered through the SNUDLE usage log information and a log that teachers complete. Three measures of social validity were used to understand the general support and perceived beneficial effects—classroom survey of teachers, teacher log of the use of class time, and student surveys.
Data analytic strategy
Two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) analyses were performed to account for students nested in teachers’ classrooms. Dependent variables were the standardized science test (the NWEA MAP), curriculum-based quiz scores from STEMscopes, a district interim assessment, and motivation for science measures. The models included a constant, a pretest score on the same outcome measure or Texas state accountability test (STAAR) reading score (when pretest on the same outcome measure was not available), demographic characteristics, and treatment indicator.
Key outcomes
The main findings of this study, as reported by the principal investigator, are as follows:
- The 2-year findings suggest no significant impact on motivation or academic achievement in science among the full sample.
- However, moderator analysis indicated positive effects of the intervention on motivation in science among students with disabilities, as well as students for whom English is not a first language. Among students with disabilities, effect size differences were .28 for the Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) test (p<.10), .51for the district interim assessment (p<.10), .83 for curriculum-based measures (p<.01), and .83 for interest in science (p<.05).
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Project contributors
Products and publications
Project website:
Publications:
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
Additional project information
Additional online resources and information: Videos describing USDN/SNUDLE, its approach, and findings have been disseminated through Youtube (https://youtu.be/huPdMrb1E4k) and conference web platforms (e.g., OSEP, CEC, AERA). The USDN/SNUDLE application is available at https://snudle.cast.org/login.
Related projects
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
