Mathes, Patricia G.; Babyak, Allison E. (2001). Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, v16 n1 p28-44. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630956
Reviewed: May 2012
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
8.26 |
5.31 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 39% | |
| White | 59% |
The study took place in five schools in a medium-sized school district in Florida
Thirty first-grade teachers from five schools matched on demographic characteristics were selected to form a stratified sample and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies (PALS; 10 teachers), Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies plus Mini-Skills Lesson (PALS plus ML; 10 teachers), or a comparison group (10 teachers). After rank-ordering students by their reading ability within the classroom, each teacher identified five students to be included in the analysis sample: one high-achieving student, one averageachieving student, and three low-achieving students. High- and average-achieving students from the PALS plus ML group did not participate in the ML component of the intervention; thus, sample sizes for the PALS plus ML group are smaller than the other groups. The study began with 150 first-grade students. After attrition, the final analysis sample was 130 students (61 students in PALS, 20 in PALS plus ML, and 49 in the comparison group) and 28 teachers. The post-attrition samples were checked for equivalence at pretest by the WWC, and only one comparison was found to be comparable. The WWC intervention rating is based on the comparison of the combined PALS and PALS plus ML conditions to the comparison group with a total of 130 students across different ability groups. The mean age of the participating students was 6.9 years. Forty-seven percent of the students were female, 39% were African American, 59% were White, and 32% had special needs.
This study included two intervention conditions, PALS and PALS plus ML, that are combined for the purposes of this review. Teachers in both of these groups implemented PALS with their entire class for 14 weeks in 35-minute sessions three times a week. In each lesson, a stronger reader and a weaker reader were paired. In Sounds and Words activities, students practiced phonemic segmentation, applied alphabetic knowledge to decoding novel words, and read connected text built on previously mastered phonological elements. During Story Sharing time, students made predictions about a book prior to reading it, shared the experience of reading the book with a peer, had repeated exposure to the text, and summarized the text through verbal retelling. In the PALS plus ML condition, a 15- to 20-minute mini-lesson was also given to small groups of low-achieving students in each classroom three times a week during the last six weeks of the PALS intervention. Teachers taught the mini-lessons before the PALS sessions. The content of the mini-lessons was the same as the Words and Sounds portion of PALS.
Teachers used their regular reading curriculum and did not receive any recommendations or feedback about instruction from the researchers. However, PALS staff collected student data weekly using the Continuous Progress Monitoring measure across all groups (treatment and comparison). All teachers were also given a graph showing students’ progress every month.
The study included several outcome measures, but only the analysis of achievement using the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised Passage Comprehension subtest meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Intervention teachers participated in an all-day in-service workshop prior to the intervention. They were provided with a manual describing PALS and practiced using the intervention. During training, PALS project staff were available to provide support needed to implement the program. Project staff conducted three observations of teachers and students; intervention fidelity was 93% for teachers, and ranged from 75% (Sounds and Words) to 82% (Story Sharing) for students.
Reviewed: January 2012
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube