Walton, Patrick D.; Walton, Lona M. (2002). Scientific Studies of Reading, v6 n1 p79-115 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ647018
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Sounds |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton and Walton (2002) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Analogy RIL vs Control;
|
12.26 |
2.61 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was implemented in schools in a medium sized city in British Columbia, located in areas with varying socioeconomic conditions. All sessions were conducted in subgroups of 2 to 4 children delivered in a spare room near the classroom.
The researchers began teaching sessions by providing 1-2 minutes of direct instruction. Next, students played a cooperative game designed to provide experience with the skill taught during direct instruction. In the Analogy RIL treatment group, researchers recorded the time spent on the rime analogy strategy and three pre reading skills (rhyming, initial phoneme identification, and letter-sounds knowledge) and sought to ensure that equal time was spent on each. --Add-on or stand-alone intervention: The intervention were stand-alone sessions delivered as a supplement to regular classroom instruction. --Number of lessons, frequency, and duration: Students received two intervention sessions each week for ten weeks. Each session lasted 25 minutes. --Home component: There was no home component --Intervention implementer: Study researchers implemented the intervention. No information is provided about the researchers. The number of researchers who delivered sessions is unclear, as the study uses both singular and plural nouns to refer to study implementers. --Materials used: The intervention involved use of 16 cooperative games. --Scripted: The intervention does not appear to be scripted. --Formative assessment: The intervention did not appear to include any formative assessments. For study 2, in the Analogy treatment group, researchers focused exclusively on rime analogy reading strategy. In the RIL group, researchers focused only on the three pre reading skills (rhyming initial phoneme identification, and letter-sounds knowledge). In the RL group, researchers taught rhyming and letter–sounds. In the IL group, researchers taught initial phoneme identity and letter–sounds.
Students in the control group in Study 1 received 25 minute long small group sessions (2-4 students per group) that were delivered twice a week. During the sessions, the study author read storybooks selected by the students from the classroom. The researcher encouraged students to interactively discuss the stories but did not direct students' attention to text in the books, unless requested by the students. There was no control group for Study 2.
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