Hock, Michael F.; Brasseur-Hock, Irma F.; Hock, Alyson J.; Duvel, Brenda (2017). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v50 n2 p195-212. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1129864
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) |
Fusion Reading vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.34 |
21.70 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 35% | |
| White | 65% |
The study took place in three middle schools in a medium-sized urban school district located in the Midwest.
The sample was all sixth grade, and students were in special education with Individualized Education Plans. Eighty-six percent were identified with learning disabilities and 4 percent had a hearing impairment. Sixty-five percent of students were White, and 55 percent received free or reduced-price lunches. Males made up 67.50 percent of the analytic sample.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The Fusion Reading is a supplemental program that includes curriculum and professional development components and is typically implemented over a two-year period. In this study, outcomes were measured after one school year of program implementation. Fusion Reading is delivered in small groups (three to eight students) and is designed for students in grades six to eight who are two to five years below reading level; this study included students in grade six. The Fusion Reading curriculum is scripted and has seven instructional units to be used every instructional day. In this study, Fusion Reading was implemented in small groups of 3 to 8 students in 50-minute lessons, 5 times per week during the school year. (For this review, the focus is just on the first year of program implementation; the study includes details on the second year of Fusion Reading implementation, but that is not included in this review.) The curriculum includes four components: (1) word-level skills, (2) comprehension, (3) motivation, and (4) assessment. The program emphasizes teaching students reading comprehension, decoding, and other reading objectives with step-by-step strategies.
Comparison condition teachers implemented their business as usual curriculum, Corrective Reading, which is a direct instruction program that focuses on reading accuracy (decoding), fluency, and comprehension skills of students. All lessons in the program are sequenced and scripted. Corrective Reading has four levels that address students’ decoding skills and six levels that address students’ comprehension skills. The program was implemented in small groups of 4 to 8 students in 50-minute lessons, 5 times per week during the school year. All comparison teachers were experienced in teaching the program, and also received professional development that focused on Corrective Reading implementation. Although not the focus of this review, in year 2 of the study, both groups had been exposed to the intervention as all teachers implemented Fusion Reading.
During the first year of implementation (the focus of this review), teachers received professional development for three days prior to the start of the first school year and three days in the spring semester. Teachers also received ongoing instructional coaching. (Teachers also received training for one day before the start of the second year, and four days in the spring of the second year; this year of implementation is not of focus in this review.)
Reviewed: December 2018
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): Overall Score |
Fusion Reading vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.34 |
21.70 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 65% |
The study took place in three middle schools located in an urban district in the Midwest. (p. 199)
Across the three study schools, 65% of students were White, and 55% received free or reduced-price lunches. Males made up 68% of the analytic sample. All participants were special education students that had active Individualized Education Plans. (p. 199)
Fusion Reading is a supplemental program that includes curriculum and professional development components and is typically implemented over a two-year period. Fusion Reading is designed for students in grades 6 to 8 who are two to five years below reading level; the study included students in grade 6. The Fusion Reading curriculum is scripted and has seven instructional units to be used every instructional day. Fusion Reading was implemented in small groups of three to eight students in 50-minute lessons five times per week during the school year. The curriculum includes four components: (1) Word level skills, (2) comprehension, (3) motivation, and (4) assessment (p. 200). The program emphasizes teaching students reading comprehension, decoding, and other reading objectives with step-by-step strategies. (pp. 199-201).
Comparison teachers implemented Corrective Reading, a direct instruction program that focuses on reading accuracy (decoding), fluency, and comprehension skills of students. All lessons in the program are sequenced and scripted. Corrective Reading has four levels that address students’ decoding skills and six levels that address students’ comprehension skills. The program was implemented in small groups of four to eight students in 50-minute lessons five times per week during the school year. All comparison teachers were experienced in teaching the program, and also received professional development (PD) that focused on Corrective Reading implementation. In year 2 of the study, both groups had been exposed to the intervention as all teachers implemented Fusion Reading. (p. 202)
Teachers received professional development for three days prior to the start of the first year, three days in the spring semester of the first year, one day before the start of the second year, and four days in the spring of the second year. Teachers also received ongoing instructional coaching. (p. 202)
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