Swanlund, A., Dahlke, K., Tucker, N., Kleidon, B., Kregor, J., Davidson-Gibbs, D., & Halberg, K. (2012). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595200
Reviewed: January 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
READ 180 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in a classroom setting in five Title I schools in the Milwaukee Public Schools in Milwaukee, WI.
The schools participating in this study were all Title 1 schools, and the percentage of enrolled students at these schools who were eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch ranged from 67% to 95%. The percentage of ELL students at these schools ranged from <1% to 35%.
READ 180 is a comprehensive reading intervention program designed to address individual student needs through adaptive instructional software, high-interest literature, and direct instruction in reading and writing skills. The READ 180 classes lasted for 90 minutes each day. Student were expected to remain in the intervention for a minimum of one year. Using a structured instructional model, each class begins with 20 minutes of whole-group instruction, then students break into three small groups and rotate through the activities of small-group instruction, instructional software, and modeled and independent reading (20 minutes in each activity). Class ends with a 10 minute whole-group wrap-up to reflect on what was learned that day. During whole-group and small-group instruction, the primary text students use is an rBook, which is an interactive work text that is organized into nine topical workshops. READ 180 also provides teachers with a variety of assessment tools, including the Scholastic Achievement Manager (SAM) Time-on-Task Report, skills Test Reports, Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) Reports, and Reading Counts! Reports.
READ 180 is a supplemental reading intervention, so students in both conditions were enrolled in a regular English and Language Arts (ELA) class. In addition to this ELA class, students in the comparison condition participated in a nonreading elective or study hall (during the time in which the Intervention group received READ 180).
The program provided several professional development activities as resources for implementing the program. Scholastic provides start-up and READ 180 implementation training. In Year 1, new READ 180 intervention teachers were required to participate in three days of READ 180 start-up trainings. (In addition to teacher, building administrators also were required to attend a half-day orientation for the READ 180 during Year 1.) Teachers also were expected to participate in ongoing professional development sessions to learn about how to implement specific aspects of the curriculum as well as best practices in literacy and data analysis; these were delivered through online courses by Scholastic. Teachers also were required to participate in monthly roundtable sessions. Carroll University offered graduate-level coursework related to this program: teachers who did not have a reading teaching license could use to earn credits toward their reading license and teachers who had this license could receive credits toward a specialist license. Finally, teachers mentoring from more experienced teachers and coaches. A coach from Scholastic would conduct observations and provide feedback for READ 180 teachers on a monthly basis. The MPS project coordinator would also would observe classes and provide feedback, as would District Identified for Improvement (DIFI) supervisors, literacy coaches, or experienced READ 180 teachers.
Reviewed: September 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading sub-test - Northwest Evaluation Association |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - ITT analysis;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 70% | |
| Other or unknown | 23% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study took place in grades 6 through 9 in five Title I schools from the Milwaukee Public Schools district.
Among students with data about their characteristics, about a third were enrolled in special education (35.5 percent) and a few were English language learners (7.8 percent). The majority of students received free or reduced-priced meals (87.8 percent). Sixty-one percent of the sample was male, and 39 percent was female. In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of students were Black (70.1 percent), 18.9 percent were Hispanic, 7.2 percent were White, and 22.8 percent identified as other.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The READ 180 intervention aims to improve student reading skills—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension, and writing and grammar. The 90-minute lesson cycle begins and ends with teacher-led whole-group instruction. The whole-group instruction begins with the teacher providing systematic instruction of specific skills in reading, writing, and vocabulary to the whole class. During the whole-group instruction, students are provided the opportunity to use structured Red Routines such as Oral Cloze or Think (Write)-Pair-Share to practice speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The instruction is used for students who are having difficulty with a particular skill and provides intensive instruction or conferencing with individual students. READ 180 Topic Software provides one-on-one dynamic instruction as it continuously assesses and adjusts to students’ individual needs and learning rates. The Structured Independent/Modeled Reading provides students with access to a variety of literature and holds them accountable for their own reading.
Students in the comparison group did not participate in any supplemental instruction and were enrolled either in study hall or in an elective while those in the intervention group received READ 180. Students in both conditions received the same English language arts instruction taught by the same teachers in the same classrooms. Two comparison students enrolled in the READ 180 course.
Students were provided with three days of READ 180 training as well as ongoing training throughout the first year of implementation. The teachers also participated in monthly discussions.
Reviewed: November 2016
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 180®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Intent-to-treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Treatment-on-the- treated (TOT) sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 70% |
The intervention was implemented in five schools in the Milwaukee Public Schools district.
READ 180® was implemented in fall 2010 through spring 2011. Students were eligible for the study if they met the guidelines established by Milwaukee Public Schools for entrance into the READ 180® program. More specifically, students were eligible if they scored at the Minimal or Basic level on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE) in the fall of 2009. If WKCE scores were not available, students could still be eligible for the study if they scored at Minimal or Basic on the Discovery Education Assessment Predictive Benchmark Assessment or if teacher assessments indicated that students were performing at least two grade levels below expectations. Students with disabilities were eligible for the study if they completed a 1-year remedial language course, and English learners (ELs) were eligible for the study if they had a Language Acquisition Unit level of 3.0 or higher. Eligible students in grades 6–10 were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison group in two stages. The first stage was completed in July 2010, and randomization was conducted within each school-by-grade block, controlling for special education status. This randomization process resulted in 434 students assigned to the READ 180® group and 375 students assigned to the comparison group. Following the receipt of an updated school enrollment file at the end of July, a second randomization was conducted in August 2010. This second randomization process, which was designed the fill the remaining READ 180® slots in each school, involved assigning each eligible student a random number, sorting those numbers by school and grade, and then selecting the appropriate number of students based on their assigned number. The second randomization resulted in 158 students assigned to the READ 180® group and 159 students assigned to the comparison group. Including both randomizations, a total of 592 students were assigned to the intervention group and 534 to the comparison group. The analysis was conducted on 335 intervention group students and 284 comparison group students. Among the students for whom data were available, the majority of students in both the READ 180® and comparison groups was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (88%) and was African American (70%). About 36% were special education students, and 8% were English learners. Less than half of the students (39%) were female.
Students were given READ 180® instruction for 90 minutes each day for the 2010–11 school year. Classes began with 20 minutes of whole-group instruction. Next, students broke out into three groups that provided 20 minutes each of small-group instruction, instructional software, and modeled and independent reading. The class concluded with a 10-minute whole-group wrap-up. Students were to remain in the READ 180® intervention between 1 and 2 years. If students reached district-approved proficiency levels, they could exit the program early. Eight reading intervention teachers were hired to teach the supplemental READ 180® classes, with 15–21 students assigned to each teacher.
The planned comparison condition called for students to attend their regular ELA class, plus an elective (non-reading related) class or study hall. However, multiple students in the comparison condition enrolled in reading or ELA-related electives, and two comparison students enrolled in the READ 180® course.
Teachers received 3 days of READ 180® training and ongoing training throughout the year. Teachers were also required to participate in monthly roundtable discussions. Building administrators for each school also attended a half-day orientation to the program.
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.
Scholastic, Inc. (2013). Urban students in Milwaukee public schools demonstrate improved reading achievement after READ 180® instruction. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
Reviewed: March 2016
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.
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