Wisconsin Full Results Report

Summary of Findings

Model Fidelity

In general, teachers incorporated their respective instructional model (e.g., 6+1 Trait Writing® or Big6TM) approximately 1 – 3 times a month and when they did engage the students teachers used a little less than half the class time dedicated to teaching their respective model. Overall, model use and engagement was moderate with no practical group differences. Furthermore, the 6+1 Trait Writing® remained fairly consistent in spending approximately half the class time engaging students in activities related to the 6+1 Trait Writing® model. The Big6TM   teachers remained relatively consistent as well in spending about half the class time engaging students in activities related to the Big6TM model.

Students felt that they rarely learned about their respective instructional model (e.g., 6+1 Trait Writing® or Big6TM). This was slightly lower than teachers’ reported instructional engagement of the models with their students. Though there were slight differences between groups, these mean differences did not exhibit a practically sizable effect. In other words, over the course of the study mean differences between groups were small and not practically meaningful.

Overall, teachers reported teaching their respective treatment model to their classes somewhat more than what students reported learning about the model. Observational results corroborate with teacher and student reports. However, despite similar results across data sources, the models were not taught on a regular basis, which yield concerns for the validity of students’ skills in application of the model as measured by their school achievement.

Technology

In general, the teachers indicated moderate levels of computer and technology use with some significant differences over time and between the control, 6+1 Trait Writing®, and Big6TM groups. Overall, the 6+1 Trait Writing® group used technology slightly more than the other two groups consistently over time. Teachers had students using computers to complete assignments every few weeks or at least once a month with the 6+1 Trait Writing® group showing a slight increase in computer use. In general, students rarely used software with the exception of the 6+1 Trait Writing® group showing a significant increase in software use. Finally, teachers reported believing they possessed average skills in their use of computers and the internet. Teachers’ perceptions of their computer skills were relatively consistent across time regardless of their assigned treatment group.

Student responses on the questionnaire were similar to those expressed by their teachers. In general, students reported infrequent use of technology and computers in school. A closer examination of students’ responses on the questionnaire by their treatment group revealed significant differences between groups, however the effects of the mean differences between groups were small. The 6+1 Trait Writing® students consistently felt they used computers and technology more than the control and Big6TM groups. Thus, the control and Big6TM groups used technology about the same amount of the time. Though, again the group mean differences were generally small.

In terms of student achievement data from standardized tests, whether or not schools used technology accounted for a small amount of the differences in science achievement scores across schools at the onset of the study, but growth in these same scores was not due to technology use. For social studies achievement, the use of technology accounted for a significant portion of the differences across schools at the onset of the study, but over the two years social studies achievement growth was not accounted for by either technology or any additional predictors.

Overall, teacher and student questionnaire results corroborate technology use on a biweekly basis. However the 6+1 Trait Writing® used technology slightly more than the other two groups consistently over time.

Constructivism

In general, teachers did not have high expectations of engaging their students in learning by constructivist type teaching practices. Though, the 6+1 Trait Writing® group had higher expectations of constructivist learning than their Big6TM counterparts. However, these expectations were not greater than the control group for the 6+1 Trait Writing® group. Further, teachers rarely used constructivist type activities within their classroom and this was consistent across instructional groups. Thus, while teachers across groups slightly agreed with constructivist beliefs, there were no significant changes in teachers’ reported beliefs from the beginning of 2004, to the end of May 2006. Additionally, teachers did not differ significantly in their constructivist beliefs regardless of the treatment group to which they were assigned.

Overall, the integration of technology and constructivist instructional activities in the classroom remained relatively stable. The Big6TM teachers did report a slight increase in constructivist activities, but this was not supported by the students who reported no significant increases in constructivist activities. In general, teachers reported using constructivist activities 1 to 3 times a month and students reported constructivist activities sometimes being integrated in the classroom. Further, classroom observations revealed that roughly half the classroom and instructional time in all groups were based in the tenets of constructivist practices; yet no significant changes occurred from the beginning of 2004, to the end of May 2006.