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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The intervention produced a significant intent-to-treat effect on Story Recall W scores (Mdiff = 3.02, Hedge's g = 0.29). → Leslie M. Babinski 2018 q3 i1 The effect on Verbal Analogies was marginal, with p = .053 and a confidence interval almost entirely above zero (Hedge's g = 0.23). → Leslie M. Babinski 2018

q3 i1 The intervention produced a significant ITT effect on Story Recall W scores (Hedge's g = 0.29). → Leslie M. Babinski 2018

q3 i1 The effect on Verbal Analogies was not statistically significant (p = .053) but its confidence interval was almost entirely above zero (g = 0.23). → 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 · i1 · causal · r2

Multivariate path-analysis analogue of regression predicting posttest W scores on seven WMLS-R subtests for 64 intervention and 41 control students, covarying gender, age, Spanish proficiency, and pretest English scores. The article reports "Hedge's g = 0.29" for Story Recall and g = 0.23 for Verbal Analogies; the other five subtests showed no significant effects.

"We found a significant, beneficial, ITT effect on Story Recall, with an estimated group difference in change inW scores of 3.02, 95% CI [0.02, 6.02],p = .048, Hedge's g = 0.29. We also found an effect on Verbal Analogies; although the p value for the difference in change in Verbal Analogies W scores was not statistically significant ( p = .053), the confidence interval was almost entirely above zero, Mdiff = 3.13, 95% CI [–0.12, 6.38], Hedge's g = 0.23."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• The intervention did not change overall classroom instructional quality as measured by the CQELL Generic Lesson Elements and EL Support subscales — related