Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sreb March 2010 5

567 views

Published on

Presentation on large-scale e-Learning for Educators online professional development program and research with online training and courses by EdTech Leaders Online at EDC.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sreb March 2010 5

  1. 1. New Evidence: Proving Online PD Increases Teacher Performance Barbara Treacy Director, EdTech Leaders Online (ETLO) Education Development Center (EDC)
  2. 2. Today’s Plan <ul><li>Discuss </li></ul><ul><li>e-Learning for Educators program </li></ul><ul><li>EDC/EdTech Leaders Online background </li></ul><ul><li>Sample courses and model used in research </li></ul><ul><li>Research results </li></ul><ul><li>Comments/Questions </li></ul>
  3. 3. Some questions <ul><li>Does PD “work”? </li></ul><ul><li>When is it effective? </li></ul><ul><li>When isn’t it? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we know? </li></ul><ul><li>Does online PD “work”? </li></ul>
  4. 4. Effective PD <ul><li>Should: </li></ul><ul><li>focus on student learning </li></ul><ul><li>be intensive, ongoing, connected to practice </li></ul><ul><li>address teaching of specific curriculum content </li></ul><ul><li>align with school improvement priorities & goals </li></ul><ul><li>build strong working relationships among teachers </li></ul><ul><li>-Linda Darling-Hammond, NSDC (2009) http://www.nsdc.org/stateproflearning.cfm </li></ul>
  5. 5. National Ed Tech Plan Draft <ul><li>“ Episodic and ineffective professional development is replaced by professional learning that is collaborative, coherent, and continuous and that blends more effective in-person courses and workshops with the expanded opportunities, immediacy, and convenience enabled by online learning.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-US Dept of Ed, March 5, 2011 </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Online PD <ul><li>“ Some online tools have some affordances that, if the training takes advantage of them, can help with some of the classic issues of professional development.” </li></ul><ul><li>--Dr. Chris Dede, EdWeek, 10/1/2009 </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>“ The illiterate of the 21 st </li></ul><ul><li>century will not be those </li></ul><ul><li>who cannot read and write, </li></ul><ul><li>but those who cannot learn, </li></ul><ul><li>unlearn, and relearn.” </li></ul><ul><li>-Alvin Toffler </li></ul>
  8. 9. <ul><li>Goal: Build capacity to use online learning to meet local goals </li></ul><ul><li>For states, districts, universities, non-profits, others </li></ul><ul><li>Over 3000 online specialists trained in over 36 states </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on educator PD & Virtual Schools </li></ul><ul><li>Online facilitator & course design programs </li></ul><ul><li>60+ online workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Custom course development </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Community Model </li></ul><ul><li>Based at EDC </li></ul>EdTech Leaders Online
  9. 10. E-Learning for Educators <ul><li>Goal: build state online teacher PD programs focused on content, pedagogy, student achievement </li></ul><ul><li>10 state consortium: AL, DE, KY, </li></ul><ul><li>MD, MO, MS, NC, NH, PA, WV </li></ul><ul><li>7 SREB states </li></ul><ul><li>Funded in 2005 by USED </li></ul><ul><li>Unique state/PTV partnership </li></ul><ul><li>Alabama Public Television lead agency </li></ul><ul><li>ETLO facilitator training, developer training, workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Content sharing across states </li></ul>
  10. 11. Impact <ul><li>In first four years </li></ul><ul><li>480 workshop facilitators trained </li></ul><ul><li>1536 workshops delivered </li></ul><ul><li>21,628 participants completed workshops </li></ul><ul><li>278 course developers trained </li></ul><ul><li>110 workshops developed </li></ul><ul><li>91% teachers rated workshops excellent/very good </li></ul><ul><li>96% facilitators rated training excellent /very good </li></ul>
  11. 12. Research Study <ul><li>Goal: examine the effect of online PD on teacher knowledge, practices, and student learning </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted by: Boston College </li></ul><ul><li>Includes: 4 large-scale randomized experiments using 3 workshops/grade designed by EDC for teachers in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 th grade English/Language Arts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 th grade Math </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 th grade English/Language Arts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8 th grade Math </li></ul></ul>
  12. 13. Workshop Topics <ul><li>4th Grade ELA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vocabulary, Writing, Reading Comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><li>5 th Grade Math </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fractions, Algebraic Thinking, Measurement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7 th Grade ELA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vocabulary, Writing, Reading Comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 th Grade Math </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Functions, Proportional Reasoning, Geometric Measurement </li></ul></ul>
  13. 14. Timeline for One Experiment Students Teachers Background Survey Student Instruments Background Survey Student Instruments Student Instruments Background Survey Teacher Instruments OPD Course 3 OPD Course 2 OPD Course 1 Teacher Instruments Spring Semester Fall Semester Spring Semester Year 2 Year 1 <ul><li>Online Teacher Instruments Include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge of Content Test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional Practices Survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedagogical Beliefs Survey </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Online Student Instruments Include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Outcomes Test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional Practices Survey </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. Summary of Research Findings for Teachers (ELA) <ul><li>4th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, and total ELA scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for vocabulary, writing and total ELA scores (reading comprehension was not significant) </li></ul></ul>
  15. 16. Summary of Research Findings for Students (ELA) <ul><li>4th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group for vocabulary knowledge and writing practice scores, and for the total ELA knowledge scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher practice scores than the control group for writing practice only </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Summary of Research Findings for Teachers (Mathematics) <ul><li>5th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for fractions, measurement, algebraic thinking and total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge scores than the control group teachers for proportional reasoning, geometric measurement and total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher practice scores than the control group teachers for proportional reasoning, geometric measurement, functions and total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul>
  17. 18. Summary of Research Findings for Students (Mathematics) <ul><li>5th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No treatment effects were observed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher knowledge scores than the control group for geometric measurement and functions scores, and for the total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. 4 th Grade Teacher Results- Knowledge (Sample) Instrument Experimental Group (n = 36) Control Group (n = 49) ELA Pre 37% 36% Post 52% 38% Vocabulary Pre 16% 14 % Post 22% 14 % Reading Comprehension Pre 47% 46% Post 65% 49% Writing Pre 49% 49% Post 65% 47%
  19. 20. Online facilitator training <ul><li>Graduate level facilitated online course (EDC) </li></ul><ul><li>Practicum follows training </li></ul><ul><li>Log in: http://moodle.etlo.org/course/view.php?id=430 </li></ul><ul><li>Username: srebdemo Password: opd </li></ul>
  20. 21. <ul><li>“ The interactivity and connectivity that this training course has provided has exceeded even my wildest expectations.  It's our charge to provide this kind of community- building, knowledge-sharing experience for all KY teachers. I can't wait.” </li></ul><ul><li>- Kentucky facilitator training participant </li></ul>
  21. 22. Example Workshop: Functions <ul><li>6 sessions / 30 hours </li></ul><ul><li>Includes: online reading, activities, videos, interactives, online discussions, project </li></ul><ul><li>Log in: http://edc.blackboard.com </li></ul><ul><li>Username: srebdemo Password: opd </li></ul>
  22. 23. A Final Comment <ul><li>“ My work as an elearning facilitator as well as an elearning </li></ul><ul><li>Course developer has made me an ambassador of online </li></ul><ul><li>professional development. There is no better way to </li></ul><ul><li>implement 21st century learning than to experience the </li></ul><ul><li>process of an online course. If we want our students to </li></ul><ul><li>succeed in a global environment, then we, as educators, must </li></ul><ul><li>be engaged in 21st century content, context, tools, </li></ul><ul><li>thinking skills, and assessment. </li></ul><ul><li>Thanks to online learning I am a 21st century life- long </li></ul><ul><li>learner!” </li></ul><ul><li>-West Virginia facilitator and course developer </li></ul>
  23. 24. Thank you! <ul><li>Contact: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Barbara Treacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EdTech Leaders Online </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://edtechleaders.org </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Education Development Center </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://edc.org </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. Research Data and Procedures
  25. 26. Analysis Procedures <ul><li>For reliability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Calculated internal consistency and test-retest reliability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For test scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Calculated percent correct for experimental and control groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For practice scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Calculated mean scores for experimental and control groups </li></ul></ul>
  26. 27. Analysis Procedures <ul><li>For teacher outcomes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conducted analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to test the significance of the difference between experimental and control group teachers’ posttest scores after controlling for pre-test scores </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Calculated effect sizes (standardized differences between experimental and control group teachers’ posttest score) </li></ul></ul>
  27. 28. Analysis Procedures <ul><li>For student outcomes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conducted analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to test the significance of the difference between experimental and control group students’ posttest scores after controlling for pre-test scores </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Present effect sizes (standardized differences between experimental and control group students’ posttest score) </li></ul></ul>
  28. 29. Analysis Procedures <ul><li>For student outcomes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formulated hierarchical linear models (HLM) because </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Students were nested within teachers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical model provides more accurate estimation of the impact of the treatment (i.e., these findings are more accurate than the ANCOVAs for the student outcomes) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 30. 4 TH GRADE RESULTS
  30. 31. 4 th Grade Teacher Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total ELA 21 .805 .833 Vocabulary 8 .820 .862 Reading Comprehension 7 .658 .722 Writing 6 .511 .497 Practice Vocabulary 16 .887 .904 Reading Comprehension 16 .879 .879 Writing 14 .911 .915
  31. 32. 4 th Grade Teacher Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 36) Control Group (n = 49) ELA Pre 37% 36% Post 52% 38% Vocabulary Pre 16% 14 % Post 22% 14 % Reading Comprehension Pre 47% 46% Post 65% 49% Writing Pre 49% 49% Post 65% 47%
  32. 33. 4 th Grade Teacher Results- Practices Instrument (scale 1-4) Experimental Group (n = 36) Control Group (n = 49) Vocabulary Pre 2.81 2.76 Post 3.16 2.81 Reading Comprehension Pre 3.11 3.16 Post 3.36 3.21 Writing Pre 2.89 2.76 Post 3.31 2.89
  33. 34. 4 th Grade Teacher Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size Knowledge Total ELA Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.53) Vocabulary Yes ( p <.05) Small (.27) Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.55) Writing Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.75) Practice Vocabulary Yes ( p <.01) Small (.45) Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.01) Small (.32) Writing Yes ( p <.01) Small (.43)
  34. 35. 4 th Grade Student Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total ELA 29 .829 .852 Vocabulary 10 .708 .738 Reading Comprehension 10 .659 .728 Writing 9 .59 .60 Practice Vocabulary 6 .287 .336 Reading Comprehension 10 .744 .760 Writing 10 .723 .746
  35. 36. 4 th Grade Student Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 831) Control Group (n = 1225) ELA Pre 54% 53% Post 63% 60% Vocabulary Pre 64% 64% Post 73% 69% Reading Comprehension Pre 51% 50% Post 58% 54% Writing Pre 47% 46% Post 59% 56%
  36. 37. 4 th Grade Student Results- Practices Instrument Experimental Group Control Group Vocabulary Pre (scale 0-3) 1.84 n = 762 1.85 n = 919 Post (scale 0-3) 1.89 n = 750 1.89 n = 902 Reading Comprehension Pre (scale 0-3) 2.14 n = 765 2.11 n = 918 Post (scale 0-3) 2.20 n = 757 2.16 n = 919 Writing Pre (scale 1-3) 2.36 n = 757 2.33 n = 913 Post (scale 1-3) 2.44 n = 749 2.38 n = 908
  37. 38. 4 th Grade Student Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size HLM Significance Knowledge Total ELA Yes ( p <.01) None (.10) Yes Vocabulary Yes ( p <.01) None (.09) Yes Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.01) None (.08) No Writing Yes ( p <.01) None (.09) No Practice Vocabulary No - No Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.05) None (.06) No Writing Yes ( p <.05) None (.08) Yes
  38. 39. 5 TH GRADE RESULTS
  39. 40. 5 th Grade Teacher Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total Mathematics 31 .72 .80 Fractions 9 .54 .48 Algebraic Thinking 8 .55 .60 Measurement 14 .55 .67 Practice Fractions 4 .61 .60 Algebraic Thinking 8 .82 .82 Measurement 26 .82 .88
  40. 41. 5 th Grade Teacher Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 34) Control Group (n = 45) Mathematics Pre 46% 45% Post 58% 44% Fractions Pre 60% 57% Post 63% 54% Algebraic Thinking Pre 47% 50% Post 61% 49% Measurement Pre 36% 34% Post 53% 34%
  41. 42. 5 th Grade Teacher Results- Practices Instrument (scale 1-4) Experimental Group (n = 34) Control Group (n = 45) Fractions Pre 2.74 2.87 Post 3.16 2.68 Algebraic Thinking Pre 2.87 3.01 Post 3.42 2.98 Measurement Pre 2.37 2.59 Post 2.91 2.74
  42. 43. 5 th Grade Teacher Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size Knowledge Total Mathematics Yes ( p <.01) Large (.71) Fractions Yes ( p <.05) Small (.29) Algebraic Thinking Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.43) Measurement Yes ( p <.01) Large (.93) Practice Fractions Yes ( p <.01) Large (.88) Algebraic Thinking Yes ( p <.01) Large (.75) Measurement Yes ( p <.01) Large (.57)
  43. 44. 5 th Grade Student Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total Mathematics 29 .73 .85 Fractions 8 .49 .68 Algebraic Thinking 10 .60 .73 Measurement 11 .48 .59
  44. 45. 5 th Grade Student Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 648) Control Group (n = 790) Mathematics Pre 42% 44% Post 54% 53% Fractions Pre 30% 32% Post 48% 46% Algebraic Thinking Pre 43% 45% Post 54% 53% Measurement Pre 50% 51% Post 60% 59%
  45. 46. 5 th Grade Student Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size HLM Significance Knowledge Total Mathematics Yes ( p <.01) None (.10) No Fractions Yes ( p <.05) None (.09) No Algebraic Thinking Yes ( p <.05) None (.07) No Measurement No - No
  46. 47. 7 TH GRADE RESULTS
  47. 48. 7 th Grade Teacher Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total ELA 22 .731 .728 Vocabulary 12 .703 .700 Reading Comprehension 5 .475 .485 Writing 4 .120 .214 Practice Vocabulary 4 .473 .506 Reading Comprehension 13 .871 .886 Writing 17 .836 .833
  48. 49. 7 th Grade Teacher Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 36) Control Group (n = 49) ELA Pre 34% 30% Post 40% 30% Vocabulary Pre 26% 21% Post 31% 22% Reading Comprehension Pre 37% 35% Post 45% 36% Writing Pre 47% 41% Post 54% 40%
  49. 50. 7 th Grade Teacher Results- Practices Instrument (scale 1-4) Experimental Group (n = 35) Control Group (n = 45) Vocabulary Pre 2.9 3.1 Post 3.2 3.2 Reading Comprehension Pre 2.6 2.6 Post 2.8 2.7 Writing Pre 3.0 3.1 Post 3.3 3.2
  50. 51. 7 th Grade Teacher Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size Knowledge Total ELA Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.48) Vocabulary Yes ( p <.05) Medium (.34) Reading Comprehension No - Writing Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.47) Practice Vocabulary Yes ( p <.05) Small (.30) Reading Comprehension No - Writing Yes ( p <.05) Small (.28)
  51. 52. 7 th Grade Student Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total ELA 24 .807 .833 Vocabulary 10 .701 .739 Reading Comprehension 10 .695 .720 Writing 4 .262 .438 Practice Reading Comprehension 12 .702 .773 Writing 21 .844 .863
  52. 53. 7 th Grade Student Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 831) Control Group (n = 1225) ELA Pre 64% 66% Post 67% 66% Vocabulary Pre 70% 71% Post 72% 71% Reading Comprehension Pre 62% 63% Post 62% 61% Writing Pre 58% 59% Post 67% 66%
  53. 54. 7 th Grade Student Results- Practices * There was a significant difference between the pre-scores of the experimental and control groups. Instrument Experimental Group Control Group Reading Comprehension Pre (scale 0-1) .44 n = 789 .43 n = 1154 Post (scale 0-1) .50 n = 797 .46 n = 1162 Writing Pre (scale 1-3) 2.25 n = 830 2.22* n = 1224 Post (scale 1-3) 2.33 n = 826 2.24 n = 1225
  54. 55. 7 th Grade Student Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size HLM Significance Knowledge Total ELA Yes ( p <.01) None (.08) No Vocabulary Yes ( p <.05) None (.05) No Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.05) None (.07) No Writing No - No Practice Reading Comprehension Yes ( p <.01) None (.11) Yes Writing Yes ( p <.01) None (.14) No
  55. 56. 8 TH GRADE RESULTS
  56. 57. 8 th Grade Teacher Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total Mathematics 46 .809 .847 Proportional Reasoning 29 .690 .772 Geometric Measurement 10 .430 .568 Functions 7 .597 .657 Practice Proportional Reasoning 16 .843 .883 Geometric Measurement 12 .772 .757 Functions 37 .947 .951
  57. 58. 8 th Grade Teacher Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 28) Control Group (n = 43) Mathematics Pre 38% 34% Post 42% 35% Proportional Reasoning Pre 35% 33% Post 40% 34% Geometric Measurement Pre 41% 36% Post 47% 34% Functions Pre 47% 37% Post 49% 40%
  58. 59. 8 th Grade Teacher Results- Practices Instrument (scale 1-4) Experimental Group (n = 28) Control Group (n = 43) Proportional Reasoning Pre 2.7 2.7 Post 2.9 2.6 Geometric Measurement Pre 2.6 3.8 Post 2.9 3.8 Functions Pre 2.5 4.0 Post 2.9 3.9
  59. 60. 8 th Grade Teacher Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size Knowledge Total Mathematics Yes ( p <.01) Small (.29) Proportional Reasoning Yes ( p <.05) Small (.28) Geometric Measurement Yes ( p <.01) Medium (.43) Functions No - Practice Proportional Reasoning Yes ( p <.01) Large (.54) Geometric Measurement Yes ( p <.05) Medium (.34) Functions Yes (p<.01) Large (.51)
  60. 61. 8 th Grade Student Instruments Instrument Number of Items Pre-Test Reliability Post-Test Reliability Knowledge Total Mathematics 36 .704 .758 Proportional Reasoning 10 .416 .440 Geometric Measurement 10 .493 .642 Functions 16 .499 .531
  61. 62. 8 th Grade Student Results- Knowledge Instrument Experimental Group (n = 799) Control Group (n = 1090) Mathematics Pre 50% 47% Post 52% 48% Proportional Reasoning Pre 59% 56% Post 55% 53% Geometric Measurement Pre 43% 40% Post 47% 43% Functions Pre 43% 40% Post 52% 48%
  62. 63. 8 th Grade Student Results- Significance Subject ANCOVA Significance Effect Size HLM Significance Knowledge Total Mathematics Yes ( p <.01) None (.01) Yes Proportional Reasoning No - No Geometric Measurement Yes ( p <.01) None (.07) Yes Functions Yes ( p <.01) None (.13) Yes
  63. 64. Summary of Research Findings for Teachers (ELA) <ul><li>4th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, and total ELA scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for vocabulary, writing and total ELA scores (reading comprehension was not significant) </li></ul></ul>
  64. 65. Summary of Research Findings for Teachers (Mathematics) <ul><li>5th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group teachers for fractions, measurement, algebraic thinking and total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher knowledge scores than the control group teachers for proportional reasoning, geometric measurement and total mathematics scores (function scores were not significant) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group teachers had significantly higher practice scores than the control group teachers for proportional reasoning, geometric measurement, functions and total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul>
  65. 66. Summary of Research Findings for Students (ELA) <ul><li>We focus on the results of the HLM analyses as they provide a more accurate representation of the treatment effect </li></ul><ul><li>4th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher knowledge and practice scores than the control group for vocabulary knowledge and writing practice scores, and for the total ELA knowledge scores </li></ul></ul><ul><li>7th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher practice scores than the control group for writing practice only </li></ul></ul>
  66. 67. Summary of Research Findings for Students (Mathematics) <ul><li>5th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No treatment effects were observed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8th grade: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental group students had significantly higher knowledge scores than the control group for geometric measurement and functions scores, and for the total mathematics scores </li></ul></ul>
  67. 68. Next steps….. <ul><li>Analysis is ongoing </li></ul>

×