Condelli, Larry; Cronen, Stephanie; Bos, Johannes; Tseng, Fannie; Altuna, Jacklyn (2010). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED514094
Reviewed: October 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Letter-word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
440.61 |
442.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
466.50 |
465.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ETS SARA Decoding |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.23 |
13.38 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Letter-word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
457.63 |
462.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
479.77 |
479.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ETS SARA Decoding |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
16.84 |
18.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
432.74 |
433.63 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
438.33 |
439.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OWLS-Listening Comprehension Scale |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.87 |
17.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.49 |
29.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson III - Picture Vocabulary Subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
431.55 |
431.31 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
OWLS-Listening Comprehension Scale |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
20.00 |
19.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
35.57 |
37.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson III - Picture Vocabulary Subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spanish speaking students;
|
437.91 |
438.59 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 14% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 49% | |
| White | 25% |
| Hispanic | 46% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 51% |
The study took place in 10 adult education program sites offering classes for English language learners in four states. These programs included 66 adult English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms.
The initial sample consisted of 1,344 learners. These learners were eligible for low-literacy–level adult education English as a second language classes and enrolled in one of the 10 participating adult education programs. Fifty-nine percent of learners were female, and the average age was 40. About 14 percent were Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian, or identified as another unspecified race; 12 percent were African American; and 25 percent were White. Race was not reported for 49 percent of learners.
The Sam and Pat Volume I reading textbook was used in instruction. The textbook, which is described by the authors as targeted to the needs of English learners with low levels of literacy, is a modification of a traditional reading curriculum that was developed for native English speakers (the Wilson and Orton-Gillingham reading systems). The textbook and curriculum give explicit instruction on reading, writing, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, designed for English learners. The curriculum is designed to give multiple opportunities for repetition, guided practice, and review. The vocabulary and reading passages focus words and themes relevant to the learners' lived experience. Each lesson is designed to include at least one two-and-a-half-hour session per week of pre-reading instruction, and one two-and-a-half hour session per week of decoding and reading comprehension instruction. The textbook includes 22 lessons, which developers expect would take two terms to cover. In this study, an average of 13 in-class lessons were covered, ranging from 3 to 22 lessons. Learners in the treatment group attended, on average, 79 hours of instruction.
The comparison group received standard preexisting ESL instruction, which focused primarily on learning English. The learners in the comparison condition spent more time on English language acquisition and functional reading, writing, and math instruction, and less time on reading development instruction than the treatment classrooms did. On average, learners in the comparison condition attended the ESL class for approximately 72 hours.
Treatment teachers received three days of training, which included an overview of the approach, specific guidance on lesson planning, and opportunities for reflection. The treatment developers provided a refresher webinar just before the start of the second term. The trainers also conducted a site visit to each treatment classroom about six weeks into the beginning of each term and called the teachers biweekly during the first two months. They also provided one-day individualized training to teachers who were having the most difficulty implementing the curriculum as determined by the site visits and phone calls.
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