Simon, A. J., Tunik, J., Alemany, J., Zhu, J., Zacharia, J., Ramsey, L., ...Mendes, R. (2011). New York, NY: Metis Associates.
Reviewed: February 2018
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample (Tier 2 and Tier 3 subgroups, 1 year of exposure);
|
217.55 |
216.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample (Tier 2 and Tier 3 subgroups, 3 years of exposure);
|
230.90 |
231.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample (Tier 2 and Tier 3 subgroups, 2 years of exposure);
|
221.73 |
222.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 2 in SY 2008-2009 or SY 2009-2010 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; one year of exposure ;
|
225.14 |
222.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 3 in SY 2008-2009 or SY 2009-2010 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; one year of exposure ;
|
210.91 |
209.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 3 in SY 2008-2008 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; three years of exposure;
|
226.44 |
226.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 2 in SY 2007-2008 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; three years of exposure;
|
240.03 |
240.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 2 in SY 2008-2009 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; two years of exposure;
|
228.01 |
229.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Illinois Standards Achievement Test |
Small group focused instruction for Tier 2 and Tier 3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students entering 6th grade at Tier 3 in SY 2009-2009 and in one of targeted grades in SY 2009-2010; two years of exposure;
|
213.36 |
215.28 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 54% |
| Hispanic | 40% |
The students attend schools in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) district.
Student characteristics for each of the samples of interest for the review were: (1) analytic group 5 - for comparison sample, 50% female, 64% African American, 32% Hispanic, 97% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 50% female, 54% African American, 40% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL (2) analytic group 6 - for comparison sample, 49% female, 69% African American, 27% Hispanic, 97% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 43% female, 59% African American, 38% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL (3) analytic group 7- for comparison sample, 50% female, 62% African American, 34% Hispanic, 97% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 49% female, 51% African American, 43% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL (4) analytic group 8 - for comparison sample, 49% female, 72% African American, 23% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 42% female, 61% African American, 37% Hispanic, 99% eligible for FRPL (5) analytic group 9 - for comparison sample, 55% female, 72% African American, 23% Hispanic, 97% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 48% female, 64% African American, 30% Hispanic, 94% eligible for FRPL (6) analytic group 10 - for comparison sample, 43% female, 81% African American, 17% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL; for intervention sample, 47% female, 75% African American, 21% Hispanic, 98% eligible for FRPL
There are three components to the Striving Readers intervention: 1) Whole-school blended intervention: a 90-minute instructional model in ELA classes and 45-minute model in subject-area classes which incorporate whole and small group work. Each classroom is supported by listening centers, media centers, and handheld computers. Key approaches include direct and explicit vocabulary instruction based on Building Academic Vocabulary; partner reading for fluency, comprehension and vocabulary development; word study based on Words Their Way; and Striving Readers text sets related to subject-area content. 2) Targeted intervention consists of differentiated instruction and scaffolding with the regular ELA class. 3) Intensive intervention is built around the Achieving Maximum Potential (AMP) literacy program and includes 1 hour per day for 4 days per week (240 extra minutes/week) of customized instruction for small (3-4 students) homogenous groups during after-school classes. Intensive intervention includes more frequent assessment and adjustment of instruction and highly motivating reading materials integrated with technology and audio.
Authors note that comparison schools have been implementing interventions for their struggling readers that are similar to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions of the Striving Readers program. Some comparison schools also have literacy coaches that do many, although not all, of the same activities as the coaches in the two interventions. About three-quarters of the comparison schools reported offering on-site literacy programs that provided additional instructional time before or after school. However, only one-fourth of the schools target this activity to struggling readers .
Teachers participated in a 5-day summer institute. In years 3 and 4, both cohorts of teachers participated in 3-day summer institutes. In addition there were 3-hour follow-up institutes conducted quarterly and 5 Saturday seminars. Literacy Intervention Teachers participated in weekly training sessions during years 1 to 3 and bi-weekly training sessions during year 4.
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