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)¶
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? Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 students gained more than 4 points on average from PLAN to ACT science, versus 2.8 points for the traditional 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
Descriptive gain analysis (ACT minus PLAN science) for the same 808 students grouped by instructional context; no inferential test or effect size is reported for the gains, so the differences are descriptive. The article calls the improvement modest but important.
"Students from the traditional instructional context gained only 2.8 points over their 9th grade PLAN science subscore. Students in Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 gained more than 4 points, on average, from the PLAN science subscore to the ACT science subscore (Mdiff = 4.1and 4.3, respectively)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- 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 — related
- 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
- CPS students make smaller improvements on sequential EPAS tests from grade to grade than students nationally with the same prior scores — 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.