|
|
Effectiveness
Findings
The WWC review of interventions for beginning reading addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, including phonemic awareness and phonics constructs; fluency; comprehension; and general reading achievement. 8 The four studies reviewed in this intervention report address student outcomes in the alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension domains. The findings below present the authors' and the WWC-calculated estimates of the size and statistical significance of the effects of PALS on student performance. 9
Alphabetics. Three studies examined the effects of PALS on two constructs in the alphabetics domain: phonological awareness and phonics.
For phonological awareness, Mathes and Babyak (2001) found that PALS students had greater growth than comparison students on one measure (Continuous Progress Monitoring (CPM) Phonological Awareness Augmentation subtest). The WWC confirmed the statistically significant positive effect.
Mathes et al. (1998) found statistically significant positive growth in phonological awareness for low-achieving students but no statistically significant effect for average- and high-achieving students on one measure (CPM phonological awareness segmentation subtest). The WWC did not find a statistically significant effect of PALS for any single group, but found a statistically significant positive effect of PALS across all three ability groups combined.
Mathes et al. (2003) compared PALS students to two other groups.
* When PALS was compared with the usual curriculum group, the authors reported statistically significant positive effects on two measures of phonological awareness (the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP) Phonemic Segmentation subtest and the CPM Phoneme Segmentation subtest). The WWC confirmed the first but not the second finding.
For phonics, the study authors found statistically significant positive effects on two of three measures (the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) Phonemic Decoding subtest and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised (WRMT–R) Word Attack subtest). The WWC confirmed the statistically significant effect on the second.
* When PALS was compared with the teacher-directed instruction group, the authors and the WWC did not find any statistically significant differences between the groups on either phonological awareness test or any of the three phonics outcomes.
The average effect size across all comparisons and outcomes in the alphabetics domain in Mathes et al. (2003) was statistically significant and positive.
Fluency. Three studies examined outcomes in the fluency domain. Mathes and Babyak (2001) reported that low- and average-achieving students, but not high-achieving students, made greater gains than comparison students on one fluency measure (CPM Oral Reading Fluency subtest). The WWC found that there were no statistically significant differences for any of the groups, but the average effect across all groups was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria (that is, at least 0.25).
Mathes et al. (1998) reported a statistically significant positive effect on the low-achieving group and no statistically significant differences for the average- and high-achieving groups on one fluency measure (CPM Oral Reading Fluency subtest). The WWC found no statistically significant differences for any of the groups, but the average effect across all groups was large enough to be considered substantively important.
Mathes et al. (2003) compared PALS students with the two groups described in the research section on two fluency measures (the WRMT–R Word Identification subtest and the CPM Oral Reading subtest). The study authors and the WWC did not find any statistically significant differences between any of the groups and the average effect size was not large enough to be considered substantively important.
Comprehension. Two studies examined outcomes in the comprehension domain. Fuchs et al. (1999) reported and the WWC confirmed a statistically significant positive effect on one comprehension measure (Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test-III Reading Comprehension subtest).
Mathes et al. (2003) compared PALS students with two comparison groups on one comprehension outcome (the WRMT–R Passage Comprehension subtest). For both comparisons, the study authors and the WWC found no statistically significant effect of PALS. In addition, across comparisons, the average effect size was not large enough to be considered substantively important.
Rating of effectiveness
The WWC rates the effects of an intervention in a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and the comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme).
9 The level of statistical significance was reported by the study authors or, where necessary, calculated by the WWC to correct for clustering within classrooms or schools and for multiple comparisons. For an explanation, see the WWC Tutorial on Mismatch. See Technical Details of WWC-Conducted Computations for the formulas the WWC used to calculate the statistical significance. In the case of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, corrections for clustering and multiple comparisons were needed.