IC treatment students outperform controls in English Language Arts across the full sample (β = .120, p<.05)¶

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¶

q3 i? Treated students performed better in English Language Arts than control peers for the entire sample and across cohorts, with a regression coefficient of .120 (p<.05). → 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

Cluster RCT of the IC pedagogy; OLS analysis of standardized CRCT scores for 1,527 students nested in randomly assigned classrooms across two cohorts. The article reports "treated students performed better in English Language Arts" with β = .120, p<.05 (Table 2 shows Treatment 0.120, SE 0.052). No standardized effect size is printed.

"More specifically, treated students performed better in English Language Arts than their control peers for the entire sample and across cohorts (β = .120, p<.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the aggregate sample, IC effects on standardized outcomes appear in only one content area exam — a broader claim this one bears on
• ELL students taught by IC teachers outperform ELL control students in English Language Arts by .25 (p<.001) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• ELL students taught by IC teachers outperform ELL controls in Math (0.147) and Science (0.139), marginal at p<.10 — related
• No differences between IC experimental and control non-ELL students in any content area — related