Vaden-Kiernan, Michael; Caverly, Sarah; Bell, Nance; Sullivan, Kate; Fong, Carlton; Atwood, Erin; Borman, Geoffrey; Park, So Jung; Jones, Debra Hughes (2012). SEDL. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595145
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.37 |
81.57 |
No |
|
|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.65 |
82.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.58 |
86.28 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program-English language arts scaled score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
254.43 |
251.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program-reading scaled score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
251.94 |
252.23 |
No |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study takes place in Louisiana. It includes students from 10 Title I middle schools in four districts.
Sample characteristics were not available for the analysis sample. Characteristics were available for the sample of students randomized and not subsequently determined ineligible. Seventy-one percent of students were Black, 24 percent were White, and the remainder were of other races. Students were split between sixth (48%) and seventh (47%) grades, with a small number of students in the eighth grade. Fifteen percent of students were classified as special education students, 4% had LEP, and 88% were classified as living in poverty.
The intervention is a teacher-led supplemental reading program that has a component of online learning. There are 50 minute lessons a day, 5 days a week. Students work with teachers on reading literacy during 4 days a week and on the fifth day play interactive online literacy games. The intervention includes 15 2-week blocks focused on a few topics at a time. Teachers in the intervention group were required to have at least 3 years of demonstrated effective classroom instruction (considered part of the intervention).
The comparison condition is business-as-usual, which included supplemental instruction that wasn't focused on improving reading skills. In nine schools, this involved an elective course such as art, physical education, or chorus. At one school, students were enrolled in a supplemental math program.
Teachers were rated to have implemented the intervention in classrooms at a level between "medium" and "high." There was limited variation in implementation between teachers. Most teachers received a "low" level of professional development on the intervention throughout the school year. Overall, the intervention was implemented at a medium to high level of adequacy across the study schools.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - 6th and 7th grade students;
|
84.65 |
82.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
The Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) - ELA Scaled Score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - 6th and 7th grade students;
|
254.43 |
251.91 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) - Reading scaled score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - 6th and 7th grade students;
|
251.94 |
252.23 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 71% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 24% |
The study was conducted in ten middle schools across four school districts in the State of Louisiana during the 2010-11 school year. The schools were located in rural, suburban, and urban settings, and all met Title I eligibility. Students were in 6th and 7th grade.
About 71 percent of students were Black, 24 percent were White, and the remainder were of other races. About 57 percent of the sample was male, 15 percent of students were classified as requiring special education, 4 percent had limited English proficiency status, and 88 percent were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Additionally, about 1 percent were migrant students and about 11 percent were Section 504 status students.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The students in the intervention condition received the Passport Reading Journeys program during the 2010–11 school year. The intervention was delivered by teachers over 15 two-week blocks with each session lasting about 50 minutes. As part of the intervention, students worked with teachers on literacy four days a week and played interactive online literacy games on the fifth day.
The students in the comparison condition received an elective course that did not provide additional literacy instruction.
Teachers received an initial training, online product training, coursework on adolescent literacy, and ongoing consultation. The teachers were visited by the developer who observed the intervention implementation.
Reviewed: November 2019
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 Passport Reading Journeys.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th and 7th grade students;
|
84.60 |
82.22 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th and 7th grade students;
|
84.26 |
81.46 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th and 7th grade students;
|
87.70 |
86.40 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program-English language arts scaled score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th and 7th grade students;
|
254.93 |
252.41 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program-reading scaled score |
Passport Reading Journeys vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th and 7th grade students;
|
252.12 |
252.41 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 71% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 24% |
The study took place in ten middle schools in four districts in Louisiana during the 2010–11 school year. Participating schools were in a mix of rural, urban, and suburban settings. All schools were Title I schools and had sufficient numbers of struggling readers in participating grades to support the study. The Striving Readers grant program funded the study.
The study authors randomly assigned sixth- to eighth-grade students in study schools who met the eligibility criteria for the study to the intervention group or to the comparison group. The random assignment was conducted separately within each grade and school. The authors conducted an additional round of random assignment for a group of eligible students who had newly enrolled in study schools. Overall, the study randomly assigned 720 students to the intervention group and 717 students to the comparison group. The study examined the GRADE comprehension outcome for 485 intervention and 498 comparison students and the iLEAP ELA general literacy achievement outcome for 548 intervention and 554 comparison students. For both outcome measures, attrition was within the acceptable threshold for the review: the overall attrition rate was between 23% and 32%, and the differential attrition rate was between 1 and 2 percentage points. Sixth- to eighth-grade students in study schools who performed below proficiency levels on the Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) during the previous school year were eligible for the study. There were ten intervention teachers; one in each school. The students subject to random assignment were largely split between sixth (48%) and seventh (47%) grades, with a small number of students in eighth grade. Seventy-one percent of students were Black, 24% were White, and the remainder were of other races. Forty-three percent of the sample was female, 15% of students were classified as requiring special education, 4% had limited English proficiency status, and 88% were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program.
Students in the intervention group received the Passport Reading Journeys program over the course of the 2010–11 school year. This supplemental intervention was implemented over 15 two-week blocks. Teachers provided 50-minute lessons in small classes, aiming to complete 15 expeditions (containing ten lessons each) during the school year. Students worked with teachers on literacy four days a week, and on the fifth day they played interactive online literacy games. On average, teachers completed 11.4 expeditions. Nine of the ten teachers taught class periods that lasted approximately 45 to 50 minutes. The average student-to-teacher ratio was 13:1.
Students in the comparison condition received standard ELA instruction and an elective course that provided no additional literacy instruction (such as band, foreign languages, art, physical education, and supplemental math). The standard ELA instruction was available to both the intervention and comparison groups.
Teachers in the intervention group had at least three years of demonstrated effective classroom instruction and were trained in the Passport Reading Journeys curriculum. The professional development and support included a launch training, online product training, coursework on adolescent literacy, and ongoing consultation. Trained experts from the developer visited each school to observe how it was implementing the intervention, with the number of visits determined by the needs of the teachers and the contract between each school district and Cambium. The launch training, the online product training, and the online support are part of the program package included in the basic program cost. The coursework, professional development training, and coaching was conducted at additional cost to school districts or schools. Throughout the school year, teachers also received support from principals and project staff from the Louisiana Department of Education. The authors described that overall, the intervention was implemented at a medium to high level of adequacy across the study schools.
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