References
Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Jewell, M. E. (1994). The effects of classroom-based follow-up assistance on mainstream reading and language arts instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11A), 107–3473.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321–351.
Additional source:
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1992). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Building on the best, learning from what works: Seven promising reading and English language arts programs. Washington, DC: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
August, D. (2002). Transitional programs for English language learners: Contextual factors and effective programming. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: CRESPAR/Johns Hopkins University. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L., Datnow, A., Alberg, M., MacIver, M., Stringfield, S., et al. (2000). Four models of school improvement. Successes and challenges in reforming low-performing, high poverty Title 1 schools (Report No. 48). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Bramlett, R. K. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning: A field study evaluating issues for school-based consultants. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 67–84. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Additional source:
Bramlett, R. K. (1992, August). Cooperative learning: A field study with implications for school psychologists. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Briggs, K. L., & Clark, C. (1997). Reading programs for students in the lower elementary grades: What does the research say? Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Chambers, B., Abrami, P. C., Tucker, B. J., Cheung, A., & Gifford, R. (2005). Computer-assisted tutoring in Success for All: Reading outcomes for first graders. Baltimore, MD: Success for All. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P. C., Tucker, B. J., Cheung, A., et al. (2005). Technology infusion in Success for All: Reading outcomes for first-graders. Baltimore, MD: Success for All. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Costa, S. R. (1994). Limited reading proficient students in two types of cooperative learning groups for reading instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11A), 385–3460. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Crowe, E. C., Connor, C. M., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Examining the core: Relations among reading curricula, poverty, and first through third grade reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 47(3), 187–214. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Dillon, I. C. (2000). A comparative study of compensatory education outcomes of at-risk students (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Southern University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12A), 93–4110. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Duran, R. P., & Szymanski, M. H. (1993). Construction of learning and interaction of language minority children in cooperative learning (Report No. 45). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC). Denver, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Educational Research Service. (1990). What we know about: Cooperative learning. Arlington, VA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Golmic, B. A. (1992). Facilitating change: An ethnographic study to identify interventions applied during the implementation of a Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition program (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(10A), 235–3441. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Grek, M. L., & Robinson, C. (2002). Success for All. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Gumperaz, J. J., Cook-Gumperaz, J., & Szymanski, M. H. (1999). Collaborative practices in bilingual cooperative learning classrooms. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner, N. M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 344–358. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
Additional source:
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1991). Development of a school building model for educating students with handicaps and at-risk students in general education classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 311–320.
Manarino-Leggett, P., & Salomon, P. A. (1989, April). Cooperation vs. competition: Techniques for keeping your classroom alive but not endangered. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, New Orleans, LA. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Mitchell, D. R. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies. New York: Routledge. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Mitchell, S., & Wile, N. (2001). 2001 literacy program evaluation: A report of the evaluation of literacy programs in elementary and middle schools. Portland, OR: Portland Public Schools, Research and Evaluation Department. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Nath, L. R. (1996). A peer tutoring training model for cooperative groupings: Is the effectiveness of cooperative groupings enhanced by students obtaining peer tutoring skills? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(12A), 127–5051. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1993). Cooperative learning as an inclusion strategy: The experience of children with disabilities. Atlanta, GA: American Educational Research Association. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Porter, P. (1999). Cooperative education—the key to bilingual success? SEDLetter, 11(1). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.
Prado-Olmos, P., Garcia, R. G., & Duran, R. P. (1991, April). Cooperative learning for bilingual students: A case study of a CIRC implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Prado-Olmos, P. L., Smith, M. E. F., & Szymanski, M. (1993, April). Students “DO” process: Bilingual students’ interactions in a small cooperative reading group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Promising Practices Network. (2004). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.promisingpractices.net/. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Rapp, J. C. (1992). The effect of cooperative learning on selected student variables (Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition on academic achievement in reading comprehension, vocabulary and spelling and on student self-esteem) (Doctor of education dissertation, Washington State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(10-A), 3516. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Richman, B. S. (1989). Involvement in learning for low-achieving students. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Risner, G. P., Nicholson, J. I., & Webb, B. (1994, November). Levels of comprehension promoted by the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Research-based decision making series. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Schundler, E. T. (1992). The effect of cooperative learning on comprehension: An analysis of the effect of a modified CIRC instructional approach and cooperative learning partnerships on reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kean University, Union, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Schutt, A. M. (1990). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: An evaluative study of the CIRC writing component in Tift County elementary schools. Unpublished educational specialists’ thesis, Valdosta State College, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Skeans, S. E. S. (1991). The effects of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, fidelity of implementation, and teacher concerns on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02A), 211–455. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Learning together. American School Board Journal, 177(8), 22–23. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Education Association. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners. A best-evidence synthesis (Report No. 66). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2009). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice (Report No. 30). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Roots & Wings: A comprehensive approach to elementary school reform. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Roots & Wings: Effects of whole-school reform on student achievement (Report No. 36). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Additional source:
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000). Roots & Wings: Effects of whole-school reform on student achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1), 109–136.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2004). Success for All/Roots & Wings: Summary of research on achievement outcomes (Report No. 41). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1989). Cooperative learning models for the 3 R’s. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 22. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Steals, M. H. (1989). Development of an adapted cooperative learning strategy in a secondary Chapter I Option 4 reading English/language arts pairing program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(05A), 203–1564. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the time frame specified in the protocol.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241–262. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Additional source:
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1989). A cooperative learning approach to elementary reading and writing instruction: Long-term effects (Report No. 42). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Additional source:
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1989). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification (Report No. 44). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Uhry, J. K., & Clark, D. B. (2004). Dyslexia: Theory & practice of instruction (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Urdegar, S. M. (1998). Evaluation of the Success for All program, 1997–98. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Public Schools, Office of Evaluation Research. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Additional sources:
Urdegar, S. M. (2000). Evaluation of the Success for All program, 1998–99. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Public Schools, Office of Evaluation Research.Urdegar, S. M. (2001). Evaluation of the Success for All program, 1999–2000. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Public Schools, Office of Evaluation Research.
Yeh, Y. (2007). Elementary students’ prior knowledge and the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) model in second-language reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(03A), 291–867. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.