Repetita Iuvant? A Repeated Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of an At-Scale Teacher Professional Development Program.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-26 DOI:10.1177/0193841X211055354
Giovanni Abbiati, Gianluca Argentin, Andrea Caputo, Aline Pennisi
{"title":"Repetita Iuvant? A Repeated Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of an At-Scale Teacher Professional Development Program.","authors":"Giovanni Abbiati,&nbsp;Gianluca Argentin,&nbsp;Andrea Caputo,&nbsp;Aline Pennisi","doi":"10.1177/0193841X211055354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent stream of literature recognizes the impact of good/poor implementation on the effectiveness of programs. However, implementation is often disregarded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because they are run on a small scale. Replicated RCTs, although rare, provide a unique opportunity to study the relevance of implementation for program effectiveness. Evaluating the effectiveness of an at-scale professional development program for lower secondary school math teachers through two repeated RCTs. The program lasts a full school year and provides innovative methods for teaching math. The evaluation was conducted on two cohorts of teachers in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 school years. The program and RCTs were held at scale. Participating teachers and their classes were followed for 3 years. Impact is estimated by comparing the math scores of treatment and control students. The evaluation involved 195 teachers and their 3940 students (first cohort) and 146 teachers and their 2858 students (second cohort). The key outcome is students' math achievement, measured through standardized assessment. In the first wave, the program did not impact on students' achievement, while in the second wave, a positive, persistent, and not insignificant effect was found. After excluding other sources of change, different findings across waves are interpreted in the light of improvements in the program implementation, such as enrollment procedure, teacher collaboration, and integration of innovation in daily teaching. Repeated assessment of interventions already at-scale provides the opportunity to better identify and correct sources of weak implementation, potentially improving effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":"46 5","pages":"578-597"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X211055354","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A recent stream of literature recognizes the impact of good/poor implementation on the effectiveness of programs. However, implementation is often disregarded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because they are run on a small scale. Replicated RCTs, although rare, provide a unique opportunity to study the relevance of implementation for program effectiveness. Evaluating the effectiveness of an at-scale professional development program for lower secondary school math teachers through two repeated RCTs. The program lasts a full school year and provides innovative methods for teaching math. The evaluation was conducted on two cohorts of teachers in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 school years. The program and RCTs were held at scale. Participating teachers and their classes were followed for 3 years. Impact is estimated by comparing the math scores of treatment and control students. The evaluation involved 195 teachers and their 3940 students (first cohort) and 146 teachers and their 2858 students (second cohort). The key outcome is students' math achievement, measured through standardized assessment. In the first wave, the program did not impact on students' achievement, while in the second wave, a positive, persistent, and not insignificant effect was found. After excluding other sources of change, different findings across waves are interpreted in the light of improvements in the program implementation, such as enrollment procedure, teacher collaboration, and integration of innovation in daily teaching. Repeated assessment of interventions already at-scale provides the opportunity to better identify and correct sources of weak implementation, potentially improving effectiveness.

Repetita Iuvant吗?一项关于教师专业发展计划有效性的重复随机对照试验。
最近的一系列文献认识到良好/糟糕的实施对项目有效性的影响。然而,在随机对照试验(RCTs)中,实施往往被忽视,因为它们是在小范围内进行的。重复的随机对照试验虽然罕见,但为研究实施与项目有效性的相关性提供了独特的机会。通过两项重复随机对照试验评估初中数学教师大规模专业发展计划的有效性。该项目持续一整个学年,并提供创新的数学教学方法。评估是在2009/10学年和2010/11学年对两组教师进行的。该项目和随机对照试验按规模进行。参与调查的教师和他们的班级被跟踪了3年。通过比较实验组和对照组学生的数学成绩来评估影响。评估对象包括195名教师及其3940名学生(第一组)和146名教师及其2858名学生(第二组)。关键的结果是学生的数学成绩,这是通过标准化评估来衡量的。在第一波中,该计划对学生的成绩没有影响,而在第二波中,发现了积极的、持续的、并非微不足道的影响。在排除其他变化来源后,根据项目实施的改进,如入学程序、教师合作和日常教学创新的整合,对不同波的不同发现进行了解释。对已经达到规模的干预措施进行反复评估,为更好地查明和纠正执行不力的根源提供了机会,从而有可能提高有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信