blog posts and news stories

SREE 2024: On a Mission to Deepen my Quant and Equity Perspectives

I am about to get on the plane to SREE

I am excited, but also somewhat nervous.

Why?

I'm excited
to immerse myself in the conference – my goal is to try to straddle paradigms of criticality, and the quant tradition. SREE historically has championed empirical findings using rigorous statistical methods.

I'm excited
because I will be discussing intersectionality – a topic of interest that emerged from attending a series of Critical Perspectives webinars hosted by SREE in the last few years. I want to try to pay it back by moving the conversation forward and contributing to the critical discussion.

I'm nervous
because the topic of intersectionality is new for me. The idea cuts across many areas - law, sociology, epidemiology, education. It’s a vast subject area with various literature streams. I am new to it. It also gets at social justice issues that I am not used to talking about, and I want to express those clearly and accurately. I understand the power and privilege of my words and presentation and want the audience to continue to inquire and move the conversation forward.

I'm nervous
Because issues of quantitative criticality require a person to confront their deeper philosophical commitments, assumptions, and theory of knowledge (epistemology). I have no problem with that; however, a few of my experimentalist colleagues have expressed a deep resistance to philosophy. One described it as merely a “throat clearing exercise”. (I wonder: Will those with a positivist bent leave my talk in droves?)

What is intersectionality anyways, and why was I attracted to the idea? It originates in the legal-scholarly work of Kimberle Crenshaw. She describes a court case filed against GM:

"In DeGraffenreid, the court refused to recognize the possibility of compound discrimination against Black women and analyzed their claim using the employment of white women as the historical base. As a consequence, the employment experiences of white women obscured the distinct discrimination that Black women experienced."

The courts refusal to "acknowledge that Black women encounter combined race and sex discrimination implies that the boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine are defined respectively by white women's and Black men's experiences."

The justices refused to recognize that hiring practices by GM compounded discrimination across specific intersections of socially-recognized categories (i.e., Black women). The issue is obvious but can be made concrete with an example. Imagine the following distribution of equally-qualified candidates. The court judgment would not have recognized the following situation of compound discrimination:

Why did intersectionality spike my interest in the first place? In the course of the SREE Critical Perspectives seminars, it occurred to me that intersectionality was a concept that bridged what I know with what I want to know.

I like representing problems and opportunities in education in quantitative terms. I use models. However, I also prioritize understanding of the limits of our models, with reality serving as the ultimate check of the validity of the representation. Intersectionality, as a concept, pits out standard models against a reality that is both complex and socially urgent.

Intersectionality as a bridge:

Intersectionality presents an opportunity to reconcile two worlds, which is a welcome puzzle to work on.

Here’s how I organized my talk. (See the postscript for how it went.)

1. My positionality: I discussed my background "where I am coming from": including that most of my training is in quant methods, that I am interested in problems of causal generalizability, that I don’t shy away from philosophy, and that my children are racialized as mixed-race and their status inspired my first hypothetical example.
2. I summarized intersectionality as originally conceived. I reviewed the idea as it was developed by Crenshaw.
3. I reviewed some of the developments in intersectionality among quantitative researchers who describe their work and approaches as "quantitative intersectionality".
4. I explored an extension of the idea of intersectionality through the concept of "unique to group" variables: I argued for the need to diversify our models of outcomes and impacts to take into account moderators of impact that are relevant to only specific groups and that respect the uniqueness of their experiences. (I will discuss this more in another blog that is soon to come.)
5. I provided two examples, one hypothetical, and one real that clarified what I mean by the role of "unique to group" variables.
6. I summarized the lessons.

There were some other exceptional talks that I attended at SREE, including:

1. Promoting and Defending Critical Work: Navigating Professional Challenges and Perceptions
2. Equity by Design: Integrating Criticality Principles in Special Education Research
3. An excellent Hedges Lecture by Neil A. Lewis "Sharing What we Know (and What Isn’t So) to Improve Equity in Education"
4. Design and Analysis for Causal Inferences in and across Studies

Postscript: How it went!

The other three talks in the session in which I presented (Unpacking Heterogeneous Effects: Methodological Innovations in Educational Research) were excellent. They included a work by Peter Halpin on a topic that I have been puzzled by for a while, specifically, how item-level information can be leveraged to assess program impacts. We almost always assess impacts on scale scores from “ready-made” tests that are based on calibrations of item-level scores. In an experiment one effectively introduces variance into a testing situation and I have wondered what it means for impacts to register at the item level, because each item-level effect will likely interact with the treatment effect. So “hats off” to linking psychometrics and construct validity to discussion of impacts.

As for my presentation, I was deeply moved by the sentiments that were expressed by several conference goers who came up to me afterwards. One comment was "you are on the right track". Others voiced an appreciation for my addressing the topic. I did feel THE BRIDGING between paradigms that I hoped to at least set in motion. This was especially true when one of the other presenters in the session, who had addressed the topic of effect heterogeneity across studies, commented: “Wow, you’re talking about some of the very same things that I am thinking”. It felt good to know that this convergence happened in spite of the fact that the two talks could be seen as very different at the surface level. (And no, people did not leave in droves.)

Thank you Baltimore! I feel more motivated than ever. Thank you SREE organizers and participants.

Treating myself afterwards…

A special shoutout to Jose Blackorby. In the end, I did hang up my tie. But I haven’t given up on the idea – just need to find one from a hot pink or aqua blue palette.

SREE 2022 Annual Meeting

When I read the theme of the 2022 SREE Conference, “Reckoning to Racial Justice: Centering Underserved Communities in Research on Educational Effectiveness”, I was eager to learn more about the important work happening in our community. The conference made it clear that SREE researchers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to swap individual-level variables for system-level variables that better characterize issues of systematic access and privilege. I was also excited that many SREE researchers are pulling from the fields of mixed methods and critical race theory to foster more equity-aligned study designs, such as those that center participant voice and elevate counter-narratives.

I’m excited to share a few highlights from each day of the conference.

Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Dr. Kamilah B. Legette, University of Denver

Dr. Kamilah B. Legette from the University of Denver discussed their research exploring the relationship between a student’s race and teacher perceptions of the student’s behavior as a) severe, b) inappropriate, and c) indicative of patterned behavior. In their study, 22 teachers were asked to read vignettes describing non-compliant student behaviors (e.g., disrupting storytime) where student identity was varied by using names that are stereotypically gendered and Black (e.g., Jazmine, Darnell) or White (e.g., Katie, Cody).

Multilevel modeling revealed that while student race did not predict teacher perceptions of behavior as severe, inappropriate, or patterned, students’ race was a moderator of the strength of the relationship between teachers’ emotions and perceptions of severe and patterned behavior. Specifically, the relationship between feelings of frustration and severe behavior was stronger for Black children than for White children, and the relationship between feelings of anger and patterned behavior showed the same pattern. Dr. Legette’s work highlighted a need for teachers to engage in reflective practices to unpack these biases.

Dr. Johari Harris, University of Virginia

In the same session, Dr. Johari Harris from the University of Virginia shared their work with the Children’s Defense Fund Freedom Schools. Learning for All (LFA), one Freedom School for students in grades 3-5, offers a five-week virtual summer literacy program with a culturally responsive curriculum based on developmental science. The program aims to create humanizing spaces that (re)define and (re)affirm Black students’ racial-ethnic identities, while also increasing students’ literacy skills, motivation, and engagement.

Dr. Harris’s mixed methods research found that students felt LFA promoted equity and inclusion, and reported greater participation, relevance, and enjoyment within LFA compared to in-person learning environments prior to COVID-19. They also felt their teachers were culturally engaging, and reported a greater sense of belonging, desire to learn, and enjoyment.

While it’s often assumed that young children of color are not fully aware of their racial-ethnic identity or how it is situated within a White supremacist society, Dr. Harris’s work demonstrated the importance of offering culturally affirming spaces to upper-elementary aged students.

Thursday, September 22, 2022

Dr. Krystal Thomas, SRI

On Thursday, I attended a talk by Dr. Krystal Thomas from SRI International about the potential of open education resource (OER) programming to further culturally responsive and sustaining practices (CRSP). Their team developed a rubric to analyze OER programming, including materials and professional development (PD) opportunities. The rubric combined principles of OER (free and open access to materials, student-generated knowledge) and CRSP (critical consciousness, student agency, student ownership, inclusive content, classroom culture, and high academic standards).

Findings suggest that while OER offers access to quality instructional materials, it does not necessarily develop teacher capacity to employ CRSP. The team also found that some OER developers charge for CRSP PD, which undermines a primary goal of OER (i.e., open access). One opportunity this talk provided was eventual access to a rubric to analyze critical consciousness in program materials and professional learning (Dr. Thomas said these materials will be posted on the SRI website in upcoming months). I believe this rubric may support equity-driven research and evaluation, including Empirical’s evaluation of the antiracist teacher residency program, CREATE (Collaboration and Reflection to Enhance Atlanta Teacher Effectiveness).

Dr. Rekha Balu, Urban Institute; Dr. Sean Reardon, Stanford University; Dr. Beth Boulay, Abt Associates

The plenary talk, featuring discussants Dr. Rekha Balu, Dr. Sean Reardon, and Dr. Beth Boulay, offered suggestions for designing equity- and action-driven effectiveness studies. Dr. Balu urged the SREE community to undertake “projects of a lifetime”. These are long-haul initiatives that push for structural change in search of racial justice. Dr. Balu argued that we could move away from typical thinking about race as a “control variable”, towards thinking about race as an experience, a system, and a structure.

Dr. Balu noted the necessity of mixed methods and participant-driven approaches to serve this goal. Along these same lines, Dr. Reardon felt we need to consider system-level inputs (e.g., school funding) and system-level outputs (e.g., rate of high school graduation) in order to understand disparities in opportunity, rather than just focusing on individual-level factors (e.g., teacher effectiveness, student GPA, parent involvement) that distract from larger forces of inequity. Dr. Boulay noted the importance of causal evidence to persuade key gatekeepers to pursue equity initiatives and called for more high quality measures to serve that goal.

Friday, September 23, 2022

The tone of the conference on Friday was to call people in (a phrase used in opposition to “call people out”, which is often ego-driven, alienating, and counter-productive to motivating change).

Dr. Ivory Toldson, Howard University

In the morning, I attended the Keynote Session by Dr. Ivory Toldson from Howard University. What stuck with me from Dr. Toldson’s talk was their argument that we tend to use numbers as a proxy for people in statistical models, but to avoid some of the racism inherent in our profession as researchers, we must see numbers as people. Dr. Toldson urged the audience to use people to understand numbers, not numbers to understand people. In other words, by deriving a statistical outcome, we do not necessarily know more about the people we study. However, we are equipped with a conversation starter. For example, if Dr. Toldson hadn’t invited Black boys to voice their own experience of why they sometimes struggle in school, they may have never drawn a potential link between sleep deprivation and ADHD diagnosis: a huge departure from the traditional deficit narrative surrounding Black boys in school.

Dr. Toldson also challenged us to consider what our choice in the reference group means in real terms. When we use White students as the reference group, we normalize Whiteness and we normalize groups with the most power. This impacts not only the conclusions we draw, but also the larger framework in which we operate (i.e., White = standard, good, normal).

I also appreciated Dr. Toldson’s commentary on the need for “distributive trust” in schools. They questioned why the people furthest from the students (e.g., superintendents, principals) are given the most power to name best practices, rather than empowering teachers to do what they know works best and to report back. This thought led me to wonder, what can we do as researchers to lend power to teachers and students? Not in a performative way, but in a way that improves our research by honoring their beliefs and first-hand experiences; how can we engage them as knowledgeable partners who should be driving the narrative of effectiveness work?

Dr. Deborah Lindo, Dr. Karin Lange, Adam Smith, EF+Math Program; Jenny Bradbury, Digital Promise; Jeanette Franklin, New York City DOE

Later in the day, I attended a session about building research programs on a foundation of equity. Folks from EF+Math Program (Dr. Deborah Lindo, Dr. Karin Lange, and Dr. Adam Smith), Digital Promise (Jenny Bradbury), and the New York City DOE (Jeanette Franklin) introduced us to some ideas for implementing inclusive research, including a) fostering participant ownership of research initiatives; b) valuing participant expertise in research design; c) co-designing research in partnership with communities and participants; d) elevating participant voice, experiential data, and other non-traditional effectiveness data (e.g., “street data”); and e) putting relationships before research design and outcomes. As the panel noted, racism and inequity are products of design and can be redesigned. More equitable research practices can be one way of doing that.

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Dr. Andrew Jaciw, Empirical Education

On Saturday, I sat in on a session that included a talk given by my colleague Dr. Andrew Jaciw. Instead of relaying my own interpretation of Andrew’s ideas and the values they bring to the SREE community, I’ll just note that he will summarize the ideas and insights from his talk and subsequent discussion in an upcoming blog. Keep your eyes open for that!

See you next year!

SREE 2020 Goes Virtual

We, like many of you, were excited to travel to Washington DC in March 2020 to present at the annual conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). This would have been our 15th year attending or presenting at the SREE conference! We had been looking forward to learning from a variety of sessions and to sharing our own work with the SREE community, so imagine our disappointment when the conference was cancelled (rightfully) in response to the pandemic. Thankfully, SREE offered presenters the option to share their work virtually, and we are excited to have taken part in this opportunity!

Among the several accepted conference proposals, we decided to host the symposium on Social and Emotional Learning in Educational Settings & Academic Learning because it incorporated several of our major projects—three evaluations funded by the Department of Education’s i3/EIR program—two of which focus on teacher professional development and one that focuses on content enhancement routines and student content knowledge. We were joined by Katie Lass who presented on another i3/EIR evaluation conducted by the Policy & Research Group and by Anne Wolf, from Abt Associates, who served as the discussant. The presentations focused on unpacking the logic model for each of the respective programs and collectively, we tried to uncover common threads and lessons learned across the four i3/EIR evaluations.

We were happy to have a turnout that was more than we had hoped for and a rich discussion about the topic. The recording of our virtual symposium is now available here. Below are materials from each presentation.

We look forward to next year!

9A. Unpacking the Logic Model: A Discussion of Mediators and Antecedents of Educational Outcomes from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program

Symposium: September 9, 1:00-2:00 PM EDT

Section: Social and Emotional Learning in Educational Settings & Academic Learning in Education Settings

Abstract

Slides

Organizer: Katie Lass, Policy & Research Group

Impact on Antecedents of Student Dropout in a Cross-Age Peer Mentoring Program

Abstract

Katie Lass, Policy & Research Group*; Sarah Walsh, Policy & Research Group; Eric Jenner, Policy & Research Group; and Sherry Barr, Center for Supportive Schools

Supporting Content-Area Learning in Biology and U.S. History: A Randomized Control Trial of Enhanced Units in California and Virginia

Abstract

Hannah D’Apice, Empirical Education*; Adam Schellinger, Empirical Education; Jenna Zacamy, Empirical Education; Xin Wei, SRI International; and Andrew P. Jaciw, Empirical Education

The Role of Socioemotional Learning in Teacher Induction: A Longitudinal Study of the CREATE Teacher Residency Program

Abstract

Audra Wingard, Empirical Education*; Andrew P. Jaciw, Empirical Education; Jenna Zacamy, Empirical Education

Uncovering the Black Box: Exploratory Mediation Analysis for a Science Teacher Professional Development Program

Abstract

Thanh Nguyen, Empirical Education*; Andrew P. Jaciw, Empirical Education; and Jenna Zacamy, Empirical Education

Discussant: Anne Wolf, Abt Associates

Come and See Us in 2020

For a 13th consecutive year, we will be presenting research topics of interest at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). This year, the meeting will be held in our very own San Francisco. Some of our presentation topics include: Strategies for Teacher Retention, Impact Evaluation of a Science Teacher Professional Learning Intervention, and Combining Strategic Instruction Model Routines with Technology to Improve Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. We’ll also be making our unprecedented appearance at AERA’s sister conference The National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Our topic will be about connecting issues of measurement to accuracy of impact estimates.

In addition to our numerous presentations at AERA and NCME, we will also be traveling to Washington DC in March to present at the annual conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). We’re included in three presentations as part of a symposium on Social and Emotional Learning in Educational Settings & Academic Learning, and we have one presentation and a poster that report the results of a randomized trial conducted as part of an i3 validation grant, and address certain methodological challenges we have faced in conducting RCTs generally. In all, we will be disseminating results of, and discussing approaches to addressing technical challenges, from three i3 projects. We have either presented at or attended the SREE conference for the past 14 years, and look forward to the rich program that SREE is bound to put together for us in 2020.

We would be delighted to see you in either San Francisco or Washington DC. Please let us know if you plan to attend either conference.

Conference Season 2019

Are you staying warm this winter? Can’t wait for the spring? Us either, with spring conference season right around the corner! Find our Empirical team traveling bicoastally in these upcoming months.

We’re starting the season right in our backyard at the Bay Area Learning Analytics (BayLAN) Conference at Stanford University on March 2, 2019! CEO Denis Newman will be presenting on a panel on the importance of efficacy with Jeremy Roschelle of Digital Promise. Senior Research Scientist Valeriy Lazarev will also be attending the conference.

The next day, the team will be off to SXSW EDU in Austin, Texas! Our goal is to talk to people about the new venture, Evidentally.

Then we’re headed to Washington D.C. to attend the annual Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) Conference! Andrew Jaciw will be presenting “A Study of the Impact of the CREATE Residency Program on Teacher Socio-Emotional and Self-Regulatory Outcomes”. We will be presenting on Friday March 8, 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM during the “Social and Emotional Learning in Education Settings” sessions in Ballroom 1. Denis will also be attending and with Andrew, meeting with many research colleagues. If you can’t catch us in D.C., you can find Andrew back in the Bay Area at the sixth annual Carnegie Foundation Summit.

For the last leg of spring conferences, we’ll be back at the American Educational Research Association’s Annual (AERA) Meeting in Toronto, Canada from April 6th to 9th. There you’ll be able to hear more about the CREATE Teacher Residency Research Study presented by Andrew Jaciw, joined by Vice President of Research Operations Jenna Zacamy along with our new Research Manager, Audra Wingard. And for the first time in 10 years, you won’t be finding Denis at AERA… Instead he’ll be at the ASU GSV Summit in San Diego, California!

Which Came First: The Journal or the Conference?

You may have heard of APPAM, but do you really know what they do? They organize an annual conference? They publish a journal? Yes, they do all that and more!

APPAM stands for the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. APPAM is dedicated to improving public policy and management by fostering excellence in research, analysis, and education. The first APPAM Fall Research Conference occurred in 1979 in Chicago. The first issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management appeared in 1981.

Why are we talking about APPAM now? While we’ve attended the APPAM conference multiple years in the past, the upcoming conference poses a unique opportunity for us. This year, our chief scientist, Andrew Jaciw, is acting as guest editor of a special issue of Evaluation Review on multi-armed randomized experiments. As part of this effort, to encourage discussion of the topic, he proposed three panels that were accepted at APPAM.

Andrew will chair the first panel titled Information Benefits and Statistical Challenges of Complex Multi-Armed Trials: Innovative Designs for Nuanced Questions.

In the second panel, Andrew will be presenting a paper that he co-wrote with Senior Research Manager Thanh Nguyen titled Using Multi-Armed Experiments to Test “Improvement Versions” of Programs: When Beneficence Matters. This presentation will take place on Friday, November 9, 2018 at 9:30am (in Marriott Wardman Park, Marriott Balcony B - Mezz Level).

In the third panel he submitted, Larry Orr, Joe Newhouse, and Judith Gueron (with Becca Maynard as discussant) should provide an important retrospective. As pioneers of social science experiments, the contributors will share experiences and important lessons learned.

Some of these panelists will also be submitting their papers to the special edition of the Evaluation Review. We will update this blog with a link to that journal issue once it has been published.

How Are Edtech Companies Thinking About Data and Research?

Forces of the rebellion were actively at work at SIIA’s Annual Conference last week in San Francisco. Snippets of conversation revealed a common theme of harnessing and leveraging data in order to better understand and serve the needs of schools and districts.

This theme was explored in depth during one panel session, “Efficacy and Research: Why It Matters So Much in the Education Market”, where edtech executives discussed the phases and roles of research as it relates to product improvement and marketing. Moderated by Pearson’s Gary Mainor, session panelists included Andrew Coulson of the MIND Research Institute, Kelli Hill of Kahn Academy, and Shawn Mahoney of McGraw Hill Education.

Coulson, who was one of the contributing reviewers of our Research Guidelines, stated that all signs are pointing to an “exponential increase” of school district customers asking for usage data. He advised fellow edtech entrepreneurs to start paying attention to fine-grained usage data, as it is becoming necessary to provide this for customers. Panelist Kelli Hill agreed with the importance of making data visible, adding that Kahn Academy proactively provides users with monthly usage reports.

In addition to providing helpful advice for edtech sales and marketing teams, the session also addressed a pervasive misconception that that all it takes is “one good study” to validate and prove the effectiveness of a program. A company could commission one rigorous randomized trial reporting positive results and obtaining endorsement from the What Works Clearinghouse, but that study might be outdated, and more importantly, not relevant to what schools and districts are looking for. Panelist Shawn Mahoney, Chief Academic Officer of McGraw-Hill Education, affirmed that school districts are interested in “super contextualized research” and look for recent and multiple studies when evaluating a product. Q&A discussions with the panelists revealed that school decision makers are quick to claim “what works for someone else might not work for us”, supporting the notion that the conduct of multiple research studies, reporting effects for various subgroups and populations of students, is much more useful and reflective of district needs.

SIIA’s gathering proved to be a fruitful event, allowing us to reconnect with old colleagues and meet new ones, and leaving us with a number of useful insights and optimistic possibilities for new directions in research.

AERA 2018 Recap: The Possibilities and Necessity of a Rigorous Education Research Community

This year’s AERA annual meeting on “The Dreams, Possibilities, and Necessity of Public Education,” was fittingly held in the city with the largest number of public school students in the country—New York. Against this radically diverse backdrop, presenters were encouraged to diversify both the format and topics of presentations in order to inspire thinking and “confront the struggles for public education.”

AERA’s sheer size may risk overwhelming its attendees, but in other ways, it came as a relief. At a time when educators and education remain under-resourced, it was heartening to be reminded that a large, vibrant community of dedicated and intelligent people exists to improve educational opportunities for all students.

One theme that particularly stood out is that researchers are finding increasingly creative ways to use existing usage data from education technology products to measure impact and implementation. This is a good thing when it comes to reducing the cost of research and making it more accessible to smaller businesses and nonprofits. For example, in a presentation on a software-based knowledge competition for nursing students, researchers used usage data to identify components of player styles and determine whether these styles had a significant effect on student performance. In our Edtech Research Guidelines, Empirical similarly recommends that edtech companies take advantage of their existing usage data to run impact and implementation analyses, without using more expensive data collection methods. This can help significantly reduce the cost of research studies—rather than one study that costs $3 million, companies can consider multiple lower-cost studies that leverage usage data and give the company a picture of how the product performs in a greater diversity of contexts.

Empirical staff themselves presented on a variety of topics, including quasi-experiments on edtech products; teacher recruitment, evaluation, and retention; and long-term impact evaluations. In all cases, Empirical reinforced its commitment to innovative, low-cost, and rigorous research. You can read more about the research projects we presented in our previous AERA post.

Finally, Empirical was delighted to co-host the Division H AERA Reception at the Supernova bar at Novotel Hotel. If you ever wondered if Empirical knows how to throw a party, wonder no more! A few pictures from the event are below. View all of the pictures from our event on facebook!

We had a great time and look forward to seeing everyone at the next AERA annual meeting!

Where's Denis?

It’s been a busy month for Empirical CEO Denis Newman, who’s been in absentia at our Palo Alto office as he jet-sets around the country to spread the good word of rigorous evidence in education research.

His first stop was Washington, DC and the conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE). This was an opportunity to get together with collaborators, as well as plot proposal writing, blog postings, webinars, and revisions to our research guidelines for edtech impact studies. Andrew Jaciw, Empirical’s Chief Scientist, kept up the company’s methodological reputation with a paper presentation on “Leveraging Fidelity Data to Make Sense of Impact Results.” For Denis, a highlight was dinner with Peg Griffin, a longtime friend and his co-author on The Construction Zone. Then it was on to Austin, TX, for a very different kind of meeting—more of a festival, really.

At this year’s SXSWEDU, Denis was one of three speakers on the panel, “Can Evidence Even Keep Up with Edtech?” The problem presented by the panel was that edtech, as a rapidly moving field, seems to be outpacing the rate of research that stakeholders may want to use to evaluate these products. How, then, could education stakeholders make informed decisions about whether to use edtech products?

According to Denis, the most important thing is for a district to have enough information to know whether a given edtech product may or may not work for that district’s unique population and context. Therefore, researchers may need to adapt their methods both to be able to differentiate a product’s impact between subgroups, as well as to meet the faster timelines of edtech product development. Empirical’s own solution to this quandry, Evidence as a Service^TM, offers quick-turnaround research reports that can examine impact and outcomes for specific student subgroups, with methodology that is flexible but rigorous enough to meet ESSA standards.

Denis praised the panel, stating, “In the festival’s spirit of invention, our moderator, Mitch Weisberg, masterfully engaged the audience from the beginning to pose the questions for the panel. Great questions, too. I got to cover all of my prepared talking points!”

You can read more coverage of our SXSWEDU panel on EdSurge.

After the panel, a string of meetings and parties kept the energy high and continued to show the growing interest in efficacy. The ISTE meetup was particularly important following this theme. The concern raised by the ISTE leadership and its members—which are school-based technology users—was that traditional research doesn’t tell the practitioners whether a product is likely to work in their school, given its resources and student demographics. Users are faced with hundreds of choices in any product category and have little information for narrowing down the choice to a few that are worth piloting.

Following SXSWEDU, it was back to DC for the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) conference. Denis participated in the annual Feedback Forum hosted by CoSN and the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), where SIIA—representing edtech developers—looked for feedback from the CIOs and other school district leaders. This year, SIIA was looking for feedback that would help the Empirical team improve the edtech research guidelines, which are sponsored by SIIA’s Education Technology Industry Network (ETIN). Linda Winter moderated and ran the session like a focus group, asking questions such as:

• What data do you need from products to gauge engagement?
• How can the relationship of engagement and achievement indicate that a product is working?
• What is the role of pilots in measuring success?
• And before a pilot decision is made, what do CoSN members need to know about edtech products to decide if they are likely to work?

The CoSN members were brutally honest, pointing out that as the leaders responsible for the infrastructure, they were concerned with implementability, bandwidth requirements, and standards such as single sign-on. Whether the software improved learning was secondary—if teachers couldn’t get the program to work, it hardly mattered how effective it may be in other districts.

Now, Denis is preparing for the rest of the spring conference season. Next stop will be New York City and the American Education Research Association (AERA) conference, which attracts over 20,000 researchers annually. The Empirical team will be presenting four studies, as well as co-hosting a cocktail reception with AERA’s school research division. Then, it’s back on the plane for ASU-GSV in San Diego.

Find more information about Evidence as a Service and the edtech research guidelines.

Presenting at AERA 2018

We will again be presenting at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Join the Empirical Education team in New York City from April 13-17, 2018.

Research presentations will include the following.

For Quasi-Experiments on EdTech Products, What Counts as Being Treated?
Authors: Val Lazarev, Denis Newman, & Malvika Bhagwat
In Roundtable Session: Examining the Impact of Accountability Systems on Both Teachers and Students
Friday, April 13 - 2:15 to 3:45pm
New York Marriott Marquis, Fifth Floor, Westside Ballroom Salon 3

Abstract: Edtech products are becoming increasingly prevalent in K-12 schools and the needs of schools to evaluate their value for students calls for a program of rigorous research, at least at the level 2 of the ESSA standards for evidence. This paper draws on our experience conducting a large scale quasi-experiment in California schools. The nature of the product’s wide-ranging intensity of implementation presented a challenge in identifying schools that had used the product adequately enough to be considered part of the treatment group.

Planning Impact Evaluations Over the Long Term: The Art of Anticipating and Adapting
Authors: Andrew P Jaciw & Thanh Thi Nguyen
In Session: The Challenges and Successes of Conducting Large-Scale Educational Research
Saturday, April 14 - 2:15 to 3:45pm
Sheraton New York Times Square, Second Floor, Central Park East Room

Abstract: Perspective. It is good practice to identify core research questions and important elements of study designs a-priori, to prevent post-hoc “fishing” exercises and reduce the role of drawing false-positive conclusions [16,19]. However, programs in education, and evaluations of them, evolve [6] making it difficult to follow a charted course. For example, in the lifetime of a program and its evaluation, new curricular content or evidence standards for evaluations may be introduced and thus drive changes in program implementation and evaluation.

Objectives. This work presents three cases from program impact evaluations conducted through the Department of Education. In each case, unanticipated results or changes in study context had significant consequences for program recipients, developers and evaluators. We discuss responses, either enacted or envisioned, for addressing these challenges. The work is intended to serve as a practical guide for researchers and evaluators who encounter similar issues.

Methods/Data Sources/Results. The first case concerns the problem of outcome measures keeping pace with evolving content standards. For example, in assessing impacts of science programs, program developers and evaluators are challenged to find assessments that align with Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Existing NGSS-aligned assessments are largely untested or in development, resulting in the evaluator having to find, adapt or develop instruments with strong reliability, and construct and face validity – ones that will be accepted by independent review and not considered over-aligned to the interventions. We describe a hands-on approach to working with a state testing agency to develop forms to assess impacts on science generally, and on constructs more-specifically aligned to the program evaluated. The second case concerns the problem of reprioritizing research questions mid-study. As noted above, researchers often identify primary (confirmatory) research questions at the outset of a study. Such questions are held to high evidence standards, and are differentiated from exploratory questions, which often originate after examining the data, and must be replicated to be considered reliable [16]. However, sometimes, exploratory analyses produce unanticipated results that may be highly consequential. The evaluator must grapple with the dilemma of whether to re-prioritize the result, or attempt to proceed with replication. We discuss this issue with reference to an RCT in which the dilemma arose. The third addresses the problem of designing and implementing a study that meets one set of evidence standards, when the results will be reviewed according to a later version of those standards. A practical question is what to do when this happens and consequently the study falls under a lower tier of the new evidence standard. With reference to an actual case, we consider several response options, including assessing the consequence of this reclassification for future funding of the program, and augmenting the research design to satisfy the new standards of evidence.

Significance. Responding to demands of changing contexts, programs in the social sciences are moving targets. They demand a flexible but well-reasoned and justified approach to evaluation. This session provides practical examples and is intended to promote discussion for generating solutions to challenges of this kind.

Indicators of Successful Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Oklahoma Rural Schools
Authors: Val Lazarev, Megan Toby, Jenna Lynn Zacamy, Denis Newman, & Li Lin
In Session: Teacher Effectiveness, Retention, and Coaching
Saturday, April 14 - 4:05 to 6:05pm
New York Marriott Marquis, Fifth Floor, Booth

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with successful recruitment and retention of teachers in Oklahoma rural school districts, in order to highlight potential strategies to address Oklahoma’s teaching shortage. The study was designed to identify teacher-level, district-level, and community characteristics that predict which teachers are most likely to be successfully recruited and retained. A key finding is that for teachers in rural schools, total compensation and increased responsibilities in job assignment are positively associated with successful recruitment and retention. Evidence provided by this study can be used to inform incentive schemes to help retain certain groups of teachers and increase retention rates overall.

Teacher Evaluation Rubric Properties and Associations with School Characteristics: Evidence from the Texas Evaluation System
Authors: Val Lazarev, Thanh Thi Nguyen, Denis Newman, Jenna Lynn Zacamy, Li Lin
In Session: Teacher Evaluation Under the Microscope
Tuesday, April 17 - 12:25 to 1:55pm
New York Marriott Marquis, Seventh Floor, Astor Ballroom

Abstract: A 2009 seminal report, The Widget Effect, alerted the nation to the tendency of traditional teacher evaluation systems to treat teachers like widgets, undifferentiated in their level of effectiveness. Since then, a growing body of research, coupled with new federal initiatives, has catalyzed the reform of such systems. In 2014-15, Texas piloted its reformed evaluation system, collecting classroom observation rubric ratings from over 8000 teachers across 51 school districts. This study analyzed that large dataset and found that 26.5 percent, compared to 2 percent under previous measures, of teachers were rated below proficient. The study also found a promising indication of low bias in the rubric ratings stemming from school characteristics, given that they were minimally associated with observation ratings.

We look forward to seeing you at our sessions to discuss our research. We’re also co-hosting a cocktail reception with Division H! If you’d like an invite, let us know.