Students off-target in science on the PLAN moved to college ready on the ACT at 18% and 21% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the traditional group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · 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.
q2 i? More than twice the percentage of off-target students in the treatment groups became college ready in science by the ACT compared with the baseline group. → Dye 2013
Evidence¶
Dye 2013¶
Dye, J., Cheatham, T., Rowell, G. H., Barlow, A. T., & Carlton, R. (2013). The Impact of Modeling Instruction within the Inverted Curriculum on Student Achievement in Science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1188400
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Categorical movement analysis (Table 9) of students more than two points below the PLAN science benchmark; the article states neither ACT data nor baseline statistics predicted this growth in the treatment groups. Percentages are descriptive.
"Table 9 shows that 8% of the baseline group who were ―off -target‖ in science on the PLAN, tested college ready in science on the ACT. Comparable numbers for Treatments 1 and 2 are 18% and 21% , respectively."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students close to college ready in science on the PLAN reached college ready on the ACT at 46% and 52% in the treatment groups versus one-third in the baseline group — related
- The increase in the percentage of students testing college ready in science from PLAN to ACT was 17.8% (inverted curriculum) and 20.8% (modeling within inverted curriculum), versus 2.5% in the traditional context — related
- Students taught with modeling instruction within the inverted curriculum scored highest on the ACT science subscore (M=24.3) compared with the inverted-curriculum-alone (M=23.7) and traditional (M=23.1) contexts — related
- PLAN-to-ACT science score gains were larger under both non-traditional contexts (4.1 and 4.3 points) than under the traditional context (2.8 points) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.