Ellis, Edwin S.; Graves, Anne W. (1990). Rural Special Education Quarterly, v10 n2 p2-10. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ412221
Reviewed: May 2014
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 Repeated Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Idea Test |
Repeated Reading vs. Given a brief definition of a story’s main idea |
After full dose of intervention |
Grades 5-7;
|
4.50 |
4.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 63% | |
| White | 38% |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 100% |
The study was conducted with students from the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades from a small, rural middle school in the southeastern United States with a predominantly Black student population.
Resource teachers identified 68 students classified as learning disabled with a minimum 15-point standard score discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability. The stu dents were screened to determine their decoding speed and accuracy and their skills at iden tifying main ideas when reading. From this initial list of 68 students, the authors then identified 47 students who could read third-grade material at 100 words per minute with 97% accuracy and who scored 60% or lower on comprehension tasks. Finally, the authors then selected 32 students who were randomly assigned to one of four groups: repeated reading, paraphrasing, repeated reading combined with paraphrasing, and comparison. The authors did not report how the 32 students were selected from the 47 identified students, and there was no attrition of students from the final study sample. This report focuses on findings for 16 students who were assigned to the repeated reading group (eight students) and the comparison group (eight students). Findings for the comparison between the repeated reading combined with para phrasing group and the comparison group (reported in Appendix D) are not included in the evidence rating but are presented in this WWC report for completeness.
During two 4-day training sessions, students were taught how to use a repeated reading tech nique to find main ideas in reading. During the first 4 days of training, students were given a brief definition of main ideas. The repeated reading technique for finding main ideas was modeled by the teacher. Students practiced by first reading a story at a comfortable rate and then rereading the story several times, increasing speed with each reading. Main ideas were then selected from multiple-choice items. During the second 4 days of training, students used the same repeated reading approach but were asked to generate main ideas instead of selecting main ideas from multiple-choice items. In all cases, students were allowed 12 minutes to read the story and use the repeated reading procedure.
Comparison students were given a brief definition of a story’s main idea. During the first 4 days, students read a story and answered main idea multiple-choice questions. During the second 4 days, students read a story and then generated main ideas.
The study authors assessed reading comprehension by analyzing raw scores on a series of 10-item multiple-choice Main Idea Tests taken from Reading for Concepts, Book C. These are tests of the student’s ability to identify main ideas. Students were tested three times: after the first 4 days of the intervention (midtest), after the next 4 days of the intervention (posttest), and 14 days after completion of the intervention (follow-up). This review includes analysis of the Main Idea posttest and the follow-up test. The immediate posttest is used to determine the evidence rating, and the follow-up (reported in Appendix D) is not. The midtest was not reviewed by the WWC since it was administered half-way through the intervention. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
There was no information provided on support for implementation.
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