The Year 1 PD effect on achievement growth was similar for low-, average- and high-achieving students, with no evidence of differential effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? PD in Year 1 positively predicted slope for average-achieving (β = 0.10, p = .040) and high-achieving students (β = 0.12, p = .036); for low-achieving students the effect was similar in size but did not reach significance (β = 0.12, p = 0.051). → Prast 2018 q3 i? Wald tests showed the PD effect on growth was not significantly different between achievement groups (e.g. low vs. average: W = 0.19, p = .667). → Prast 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Prast 2018¶

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2018). Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional development on student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.009

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Multiple-group latent growth curve model (Grade 2-6 students; low n = 989, average n = 1300, high n = 1225, grouped by T1 CMT z-scores) estimating the PD effect separately per achievement group. The article reports the low-achieving group's non-significance likely reflects its slightly smaller subsample.

"PD in Year 1 had a significant positive effect on the slope of mathematics achievement for average-achieving students ( β = 0.10, p = .040) and high-achieving students ( β = 0.12, p = .036). For low-achieving students, the effect was similar in size but did not reach significance ( β = 0.12, p = 0.051)."

Prast 2018 (2)¶

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2018). Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional development on student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.009

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Wald tests within the Year 1 multiple-group model compared the PD slope effect across the three achievement groups; none of the pairwise contrasts was significant, so the authors conclude the intervention benefited all achievement groups similarly.

"However, Wald tests demonstrated that the effect of PD on achievement growth was not significantly different between achievement groups (low-achieving vs. average-achieving students: W = 0.19, p = .667; low-achieving vs. high-achieving: W = 0.01, p = .913; average-achieving vs. high-achieving: W = 0.08, p = 0.776)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Year 2, the PD programme showed neither short-term effects for newly trained teachers nor long-term effects for previously trained teachers — related
• Teacher PD on differentiated instruction produced a small significant positive effect on mathematics achievement growth in Year 1 (β = 0.15, p = .007) — related