Murphy, P. Karen; Greene, Jeffrey A.; Firetto, Carla M.; Li, Mengyi; Lobczowski, Nikki G.; Duke, Rebekah F.; Wei, Liwei; Croninger, Rachel M. V. (2017). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590416
Reviewed: June 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High-Level Text Comprehension (Murphy et al., 2017) |
Homogeneous-ability small group instruction vs. Heterogenous-ability small group instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample: Time 3 (week 19);
|
4.93 |
5.07 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Native American | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 86% |
The study took place in four classrooms during language arts instruction in one elementary school located in a small Midwestern city.
A total of 59 students in grades 4 through 5 were included in the study. The 59 students in elementary school were taught by four teachers in one school. Approximately 55% of students in study classrooms at the time of random assignment were female. The demographic characteristics of the analytic sample were not presented in the study. However, among the approximately 300 students enrolled in the school in kindergarten through grade 5, about 30% were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Most students in the school (86%) were White, 2% were American Indian/Alaska Native, 2% were Asian, 2% were Black, and 8% were unknown.
The intervention condition is a teaching practice involving small group instruction for students of similar reading abilities, referred to as homogeneous-ability small group instruction. The intervention group included three small groups per grade level, each containing 4 to 6 students: one group included high achieving students, one group included average achieving students, and one group included low achieving students. All groups in both study conditions were instructed using Quality Talk, a reading comprehension curriculum fostering small peer group discussions that promote critical thinking and personal connection to retrieve information from written text. Each teacher conducted 20 Quality Talk sessions, rotating groups every 3 to 4 sessions. Students participated in the study for the entire school year, though the data used in the evaluation come from the first 20 weeks of instruction.
The comparison condition is a teaching practice involving small group instruction for students of varying reading abilities, referred to as heterogeneous-ability small group instruction. Similar to the intervention group, the comparison group included three small groups per grade level, each containing 4 to 6 students with about an equal mix of reading levels (high, average, and low). Similar to the intervention condition, the comparison condition included 20 sessions, with teachers rotating groups every 3 to 4 sessions. Similar to the intervention group, the comparison group included three small groups per grade level, each containing 4 to 6 students with about an equal mix of reading levels (high, average, and low), and groups were also instructed using Quality Talk.
While the teachers did not receive specific support for teaching homogeneous- or heterogeneous-ability small groups, they did receive support for implementing Quality Talk. Specifically, all teachers participated in a two-day professional development session where they were taught how to conduct Quality Talk discussions and use effective discourse moves. They also participated in five additional sessions during the school year to review and reflect on video recordings of one of their previously conducted discussions. Students did not learn about the teacher-specific components of Quality Talk; however, they were provided with 10 lessons which demonstrated how to productively participate in discussions along with a literacy journal to completed related activities.
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