Baker, Scott K.; Santoro, Lana Edwards; Chard, David J.; Fien, Hank; Park, Yonghan; Otterstedt, Janet (2013). Elementary School Journal, v113 n3 p331-358 Mar 2013. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1013951
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Strong Narrative Assessment Procedure (SNAP) - Narrative Retells subtest |
Read aloud curriculum—Baker et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.18 |
12.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Expository Retells |
Read aloud curriculum—Baker et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.90 |
4.36 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates MacGinitie Test of Reading Comprehension - Listening Comprehension subtest |
Read aloud curriculum—Baker et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.02 |
16.08 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge |
Read aloud curriculum—Baker et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.65 |
20.45 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in 12 first grade classrooms in 12 elementary schools in 3 districts in the Pacific Northwest. 10 schools (4 assigned to the treatment group and 6 assigned to the control) come from district 1, while 1 school each from districts 2 and 3 were assigned to the treatment group.
About 55% percent of the sample received free or reduced price lunch, and a little under half was female. 27% of the intervention and 20% of the control group were minorities.
The intervention consisted of 19 weeks of instruction, broken into 2-week units. Each unit included 6-7 lessons of 30 minutes each, with each lesson centered around a book. In each lesson teachers first identified the type of book and taught vocabulary. During reading they focused on grammar in narrative texts and k-w-l (know, want to know, learned) in expository texts and prompted discussions. After reading the text was summarized, retelling practiced, and vocabulary reviewed. Teachers were asked to lead students in read aloud activities at least 4 days a week, including the intervention lessons.
Comparison teachers were asked to lead students in read aloud activities at least 4 days a week using their usual practices.
Teachers participated in a 2-day training before the intervention began, during which they were introduced to the program and lessons were modelled. Teachers also received materials. Teachers were observed and provided with feedback during the first two weeks of the intervention, and participated in a half-day follow up training 9 weeks into the study.
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