Students with lower initial English proficiency benefited most from their teachers' participation in the DCCS program, while students above the 5th percentile showed no differential benefit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Students with minimal pretest proficiency showed significantly greater progress than control students on Story Recall (g = 0.24), Letter-Word Identification (g = 0.58), and Dictation (g = 0.34). → Leslie M. Babinski 2018 q3 i1 Intervention students with no pretest proficiency made significantly greater gains than control students on Understanding Directions (g = 0.20). → Leslie M. Babinski 2018 q3 i? No differential effect of the program was found for students in the some-proficiency group on any subtest. → Leslie M. Babinski 2018

q3 i2 Minimal-proficiency intervention students showed significantly greater growth on Story Recall, Letter-Word Identification, and Dictation than control students. → Leslie M. Babinski 2018

q3 i? Students in the some-proficiency group (standard score above 75) showed no differential effect on any subtest. → Leslie M. Babinski 2018

Evidence¶

Leslie M. Babinski 2018¶

Leslie M. Babinski, Steven J. Amendum, Steven E. Knotek, Marta Sánchez, Patrick Malone. (2018). Improving Young English Learners' Language and Literacy Skills Through Teacher Professional Development: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217732335

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Exploratory multiple-group path analyses grouping students by pretest English proficiency on each subtest (no, minimal, some proficiency). The article also reports significant minimal-proficiency gains on Letter-Word Identification (g = 0.58) and Dictation (g = 0.34), and a no-proficiency gain on Understanding Directions (g = 0.20).

"We found that students in the intervention group with minimal pretest proficiency on the Story Recall subtest showed significantly greater progress than did students in the control group (adjustedM = 15.9 vs. 9.1; Mdiff = 7.8, 95% CI [5.0, 10.7], p .001, Hedge'sg = 0.24)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students whose teachers participated in the DCCS program showed greater gains than control students on the Story Recall and Verbal Analogies subtests of the WMLS-R — related
• The DCCS professional development program increased intervention teachers' use of the targeted DCCS instructional strategies and Adapted Strategies relative to control teachers, with no difference in overall lesson quality — related
• Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students