The Efficacy of Two Models of Professional Development Mediated by Fidelity on Fourth Grade Student Reading Outcomes^†

Abstract

This study addressed the effects of Strategies for Teaching Reading, Information, and Vocabulary Effectively (STRIVE), a distributed professional development (PD) model designed to help teachers implement reading comprehension and vocabulary practices in fourth grade social studies classes. Schools (n = 81 schools, n = 235 teachers, n = 4,757 students) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: researcher-supported PD, school-supported PD, or business as usual (typical instruction). Findings revealed significant effects for both treatment conditions when compared to the business-as-usual condition for content knowledge (g = 0.51–0.55), vocabulary learning (g = 0.49) and reading comprehension in content (g = 0.16–0.26). Statistically significant effects were not observed for the Gates MacGinitie Reading Comprehension (g = 0.04–0.06), however, the effect size for the Gates MacGinitie Vocabulary test was statistically significant for the school-supported PD group (g = 0.03–0.07). Findings establish the efficacy of the STRIVE PD model on student reading outcomes and supports the efficacy of using more sustainable methods of PD that feature school supported follow up PD. Fidelity did not mediate any outcomes.

Keywords:

• Professional development
• elementary school
• literacy

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Elizabeth Swanson, upon reasonable request and the establishment of a data sharing agreement between the requestor and The University of Texas at Austin. The contents of this manuscript along with analysis and reporting on the fully powered sample has never been presented or published elsewhere.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through [Grant R305A150407] to The University of Texas at Austin. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.