No differences between IC experimental and control non-ELL students in any content area¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Based on two cohorts of data, there are no differences between IC experimental and control non-ELL students in any content areas. → Portes 2016

Evidence¶

Portes 2016¶

Portes, P. R., Gonzalez Canche, M. S., & Stollberg, R. (2016). Early RCT Findings for ELL Elementary Student Learning Outcomes After a Two-Year Pedagogical Intervention. SREE Spring 2016 Conference. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567010

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Null finding from OLS analyses of standardized CRCT scores for the non-ELL subsample (761 students) across two cohorts, testing the third null hypothesis. The article reports "no differences between IC experimental and control non- ELL students in any content areas"; no effect size is printed, so equivalence was not established.

"The results showed that, based on the analyses of two-cohorts of data, there are no differences between IC experimental and control non- ELL students in any content areas."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

English-Learner Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-01`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.