Denton, Carolyn A.; Anthony, Jason L.; Parker, Richard; Hasbrouck, Jan E. (2004). Elementary School Journal, v104 n4 p289. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ696176
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.
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.
Reviewed: July 2010
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Business as Usual |
10 weeks |
2nd-5th grade;
|
90.45 |
89.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Business as Usual |
10 weeks |
2nd-5th grade;
|
95.37 |
95.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Business as Usual |
10 weeks |
2nd-5th grade;
|
96.74 |
98.04 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 100% |
The study took place as a pull-out tutoring program in five elementary schools in a central Texas district. During the school year, the district served a population of 43.1% Hispanic students; 56.2% of children in the district were identified as economically disadvantaged; 9% had limited English proficiency; and 7.3% were served by a bilingual or ESL program.
The study included a group of 93 students between second and fifth grade who were bilingual with Spanish as their native language, were recommended by their teacher for tutoring, and had standardized assessments suggesting they had adequate oral English proficiency and basic proficiency in reading Spanish. The students were enrolled in 17 bilingual classrooms in five schools. Students’ ages ranged from 7 to 12 years with a mean age of 9 years; 48 were males and 45 were females. Students were assigned to one of two reading ability groups based on their scores on the Word Attack subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised (WRMT-R). Students with scores below first grade equivalency were assigned to the “emergent” decoding group (Read Well), and those with scores above first grade equivalency were in the “established” decoding group (Read Naturally®). Within each of these groups, students were matched on pretest scores and randomly assigned to either the treatment or comparison group. A total of 63 students were initially assigned in the Read Naturally® study (32 in the treatment group and 31 in the control group). Three students originally assigned to the control group participated in the treatment and were ultimately dropped from the study. Additionally, three students originally assigned to the treatment group were moved to the comparison group one week after the study had begun (as requested by one of the participating schools). As a result of these changes, the study was treated as a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The Read Naturally® analysis sample consisted of 60 students (32 treatment and 28 comparison).
The intervention occurred during pull-out tutoring sessions during the school day when the participants were not receiving their English instruction. Students in the Read Naturally® Masters Edition group were tutored three times per week for 40-minute periods over 10 weeks. The sessions consisted of repeated oral reading of connected text, vocabulary and comprehension instruction, and systematic monitoring of progress in the program. The standard Read Naturally® Masters Edition program was modified for use with English language learners by adding and extending activities related to vocabulary, decoding, and comprehension (such as oral discussions of vocabulary and comprehension and preteaching important or challenging vocabulary in reading passages).
The comparison condition received the same regular education curriculum as the treatment group but did not receive any additional tutoring beyond what would have been part of the schools’ business-as-usual approach.
The study measures in the reading achievement domain included three subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised: Word Attack, Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension. (For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.)
Tutors were 23 undergraduate students enrolled in a class in teaching students with difficulties. Tutors received training in the implementation of both the Read Naturally® and Read Well programs as part of their course instruction. They were supervised by a graduate student experienced in Read Naturally®.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Denton, C. A. (2000). The efficacy of two English interventions in a bilingual education program (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11), 4325A. (UMI No. 9994233).
Reviewed: June 2010
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 Well®.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 100% |
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Denton, C. A. (2000). The efficacy of two English interventions in a bilingual education program (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11), 4325A. (UMI No. 9994233).
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