Pyatigorsky, Mikhail; Gulemetova, Michaela; Chan, Vincent; Allen, Katherine; Saltares, Eliana; Elkins, Robyn (2019). WestEd. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED622055
Reviewed: December 2022
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Reading Apprenticeship®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Full Sample;
|
-0.18 |
-0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: English Learners;
|
-1.17 |
-1.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Low pre-test scale score;
|
-1.46 |
-1.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Full Sample;
|
-0.09 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Low pre-test scale score;
|
-1.67 |
-1.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
State English Language Arts Assessment Scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin), combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: English Learners;
|
-0.98 |
-1.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State math assessment scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin) combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Full Sample;
|
-0.18 |
-0.04 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
State math assessment scores (California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin) combined and standardized |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Full Sample;
|
-0.12 |
-0.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Growth mindset, based on researcher developed survey |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Full Sample;
|
3.76 |
3.84 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Growth mindset, based on researcher developed survey |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Full Sample;
|
3.83 |
3.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Full Sample;
|
58.67 |
60.11 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Low pre-test scale score;
|
43.40 |
43.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Low pre-test scale score;
|
44.52 |
43.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: English Learners;
|
46.15 |
47.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Full Sample;
|
57.81 |
58.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: English Learners;
|
48.09 |
47.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Effort to learn, based on researcher developed survey |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 2: Full Sample;
|
3.16 |
3.21 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Effort to learn, based on researcher developed survey |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Year 1: Full Sample;
|
3.11 |
3.12 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 52% | |
| White | 28% |
| Hispanic | 50% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 50% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 55% | |
| No FRPL | 45% |
The study took place in seventh and eighth grade science, social studies, and English language arts classrooms across 40 public middle schools in 8 school districts located in California, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The researchers randomly assigned 19 schools to the intervention group and 21 schools to the comparison group. The study took place over two school years. In the second year of the study, a total of 6,889 students in grades seven and eight were included in the study. Twenty-eight percent of students were White, 12% were Black, 9% were Asian, and 52% did not report race. Fifty percent were Hispanic. Over half (55%) of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and nearly half (48%) were female. Moreover, 14% of students were English learners and 12% received special education services.
Teachers in the intervention schools received a professional development program called Reading Apprenticeship Across the Disciplines (RAAD) in the summer prior to the first year of the study, and ongoing supports throughout the two-year study period. RAAD, designed to be a less time-intensive version of Reading Apprenticeship®, is intended to help teacher improve students’ literacy skills that are needed in core subjects, such as English, mathematics, science, or social studies. RAAD professional development was offered as a 3-day training in the summer before the start of the school year. In this training, teachers learn about the Reading Apprenticeship® model and how to help build student capacity through metacognitive conversations to develop reasoning processes and strategies to make meaning of text in a subject area. During the school year, RAAD included monthly on-site team meetings facilitated by teacher leaders and monthly online professional learning community meetings. In addition, a 2-day Calibration Institute training was held in the winter of the first school year to model practices and help teachers apply these practices to their classrooms.
Teachers in middle schools assigned to the comparison condition did not receive RAAD professional development until after the study had concluded. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
The developer, WestEd’s Strategic Learning Initiative, offered Reading Apprenticeship® professional learning to between three and eight teachers per school. The professional development drew from WestEd’s collection of curriculum examples, lesson models, support materials, classroom videos, and assessments. Teachers who left the study were replaced by the new teacher in the same classroom. Replacement teachers were offered face-to-face training and catch-up work to familiarize themselves with the intervention. As part of the intervention, the developer identified a regional partner in each participating state to support implementation and build local capacity to sustain the work. These regional partners recruited new schools to participate in RAAD professional development, connected RAAD professional development with other local reform initiatives, and facilitated the project. The regional partners were typically from regional education service agencies, state education service agencies, district offices, or county offices, and they met monthly with program administrators.
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