Arvans, Rebecca (2009). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED513836
Reviewed: July 2013
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 Read Naturally.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Read Naturally vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
93.46 |
92.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Expressive Vocabulary Test- First Edition (EVT) |
Read Naturally vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
90.58 |
90.84 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
87.24 |
86.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Summary Scores |
Read Naturally vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
94.82 |
93.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Read Naturally vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
66.71 |
61.98 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 68% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 27% |
The study was conducted in one elementary school in a medium-sized city in the Midwest.
Students in grades 2–4 in the participating school were eligible if they performed below benchmark on the DIBELS assessment administered at the beginning of the school year. After obtaining parental consent, students were paired based on pretest scores, grade, race, and gender, and then randomly assigned to either the Read Naturally® group or the comparison group. The analysis sample included 82 students: 39 in the Read Naturally® group and 43 in the comparison group. Across the three grades, the study included 23 second graders, 26 third graders, and 33 fourth graders. Fifty-seven percent of the students were male; 68% were African American, 27% were White, and 5% were of mixed race. Sixty-two percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The study did not specify the number of classrooms included in the analysis.
Intervention students used Read Naturally® Software Edition for 30–45 minutes each day, 5 days a week, for 8 weeks. All Read Naturally® sessions were conducted by graduate or undergraduate research assistants. Students first selected one of 12 stories at their reading level, and then read along to key words by clicking on the words and hearing the computer pronounce the word and read its definition. Students then wrote a prediction of what would happen in the story based on the picture, key words, and title of the story. Students then completed a 1-minute reading of the passage, observed by a research assistant or the author, who noted words that the student found difficult. They then practiced the passage while listening to a recording of it being read, and then practiced it independently. To pass a story, the student needed to read a specified number of words during the 1-minute period, make no more than three errors, read with good expression, and answer all of the questions correctly. This was done out loud in the presence of a research assistant or the author. After passing, they then moved on to the next story. On some occasions, Read Naturally® was used in place of the student’s normal language arts instruction, at the discretion of the teacher.
Comparison group students received the normal reading instruction used in their classroom. Some comparison group students were exposed to Read Naturally® during the study period if their teachers thought it was appropriate. However, comparison group students used Read Naturally® an average of less than 2 minutes per week, compared with an average of 72 minutes per week for students in the Read Naturally® condition. The Read Naturally® intervention was available to comparison group students after the intervention students finished the program.
Eligible outcomes included the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest; the EVT, First Edition; the PPVT-III; and three subtests from the WJ-III Cognitive and Achievement batteries: Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, and Word Attack, as well as a composite score combining these three subtests. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Findings for the composite WJ-III measure can be found in Appendix C.4. Three subtest findings from the WJ-III test can be found in Appendices D.1 and D.2.
The study did not describe any provider training or support for implementation.
Reviewed: March 2013
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 Read Naturally.
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