Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P. C., Karanzalis, M., & Gifford, R. (2011). Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 625–640. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ963698
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension |
Team Alphie and Success for All tutoring vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.94 |
19.45 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Letter-Word Identification |
Team Alphie and Success for All tutoring vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.73 |
38.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson - Word Attack |
Team Alphie and Success for All tutoring vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.16 |
15.88 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 72% | |
| Other or unknown | 18% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study took place in 33 high-poverty Success for All (SFA) elementary schools in 9 states--Georgia, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. The study assesses the effects of Team Alphie versus the existing Success for All one-to-one tutoring model for first and second graders.
All schools served predominantly minority populations--experimental schools on average were 64 percent African-American and 24 percent Hispanic, while control schools on average were 80 percent African-American and 14 percent Hispanic.
Tutors using Team Alphie worked with 6 children for each 45-minute tutoring period, two for each computer. Each pair worked with one computer. The pairs of students took turns being "coach" and student, under the tutor's oversight, and passed to the next lesson only when both demonstrated proficiency. They met at least four days per week, but the number of days over the year varied from 22 to 84 across schools. The authors mention delays in obtaining computers and software as well as tutors being given other duties (such as being substitute teachers).
Tutors offered one-on-one sessions with each child of 20 minutes daily, using paper and pencil materials. Activities were similar to those covered in the experimental class, but involved tutor-child interaction and no computers.
Each school had two certified teachers as full-time reading tutors. Tutors were given a full-day training in the Success for All tutoring program, except that at the end of the day, the experimental school tutors practiced using the computer software, while the control school tutors practiced paper and pencil assessments.
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