A tension between the stealth and low-stress critical components may undermine values-affirmation delivery, with teachers sometimes breaking stealth¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? End-of-year teacher survey responses indicate stealth was imperfect: 33% of teachers identified the exercises as research and only 58% presented them as a normal activity. → Dominique Bradley 2015

Evidence¶

Dominique Bradley 2015¶

Dominique Bradley, Evan Crawford, Sara E. Dahill-Brown. (2015). Fidelity of Implementation in a Large-Scale, Randomized, Field Trial: Identifying the Critical Components of Values Affirmation. SREE Spring 2015 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562183

q2 · i? · causal · r2

End-of-year survey of 26 teachers asked how exercises were described to students. Table 2 reports 33% identified the exercises as research, 27% described them as good for you, and 58% presented them as a normal activity.

"Identified as Research 33"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Student and teacher engagement with the values-affirmation exercise declined notably by the fourth administration — related
• Fidelity of implementation varied substantially across schools and classrooms in the scaled-up values-affirmation trial, particularly in teacher-centered delivery — related
• Significant positive impacts of values affirmation occurred despite low fidelity on some critical components, suggesting some delivery and stealth aspects may be less important than the original protocol defines them — related
• Treated students showed high fidelity to the cognitive process of values affirmation, while student engagement varied regardless of condition assignment — related