Spichtig, Alexandra N.; Gehsmann, Kristin M.; Pascoe, Jeffrey P.; Ferrara, John D. (2019). Elementary School Journal, v119 n3 p443-467. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1208260
Reviewed: March 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): Overall Score |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
109.43 |
107.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
112.55 |
109.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
111.64 |
108.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
110.38 |
108.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
108.03 |
106.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
105.69 |
104.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
109.99 |
108.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
107.25 |
106.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Adaptive, web-based, scaffolded silent reading instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
107.36 |
107.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 71% |
| Hispanic | 0% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 100% |
This study included grade 4 and 5 students in six elementary schools within an urban school district in the northeast United States.
The analytic sample was evenly distributed between boys and girls. The majority of students identified as white (71%) and 12% and 9% of students identified as Black and Asian, respectively. About one-third of students (39%) qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, 16% were English learners, and 9% had an Individualized Education Program.
Students in the intervention group were assigned to use the adaptive, web-based scaffolded silent reading component of the Reading Plus program. The study authors intended for intervention group students to complete 100 lessons and engage in the intervention activities at least four times per week during a 25-minute literacy block. Students engaged with the intervention on their own, either within a classroom using tablets or laptops or in a computer lab. In some cases, students used the scaffolded silent reading program in the same room as students engaged in typical instruction. On average, students completed 93 lessons. Each lesson took about 15 minutes, on average, not including time to get settled, log in, and choose a selection. About 10% of students in the intervention group completed fewer than 60 lessons.
Students in the comparison group also had a 25-minute supplemental literacy block, which was used for business-as-usual instruction. The instructional approaches experienced by the comparison group varied and included reading leveled books in pairs or small groups, practicing oral reading, discussing books, participating in teacher-directed guided reading groups, and practicing silent reading. Some students received additional instruction in word study, fluency, and reading strategies, and some students received instruction provided by special educators or literacy interventionists.
The study did not mention any other supports for implementation and implementation varied widely across classrooms. The study monitored fidelity of implementation using a checklist collected by members of the research team, which assessed the degree to which students knew what to do, were able to begin their work promptly, and were supervised effectively.
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