Greenwood, Charles R.; And Others (1993). School Psychology Review, v22 n3 p497-516. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ486049
Reviewed: July 2007
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 ClassWide Peer Tutoring.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): U Reading subtest |
ClassWide Peer Tutoring vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6;
|
46.17 |
40.77 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Six Chapter I elementary schools in one school district in Kansas City, Kansas.
Two-hundred and ninety-three first-grade students (170 students in intervention, 123 students in comparison) participated in this longitudinal study that followed students during program implementation from first grade to fourth grade and followed up two years later in sixth grade. The study assigned schools to conditions—four schools were randomly assigned to the intervention and two schools to the comparison. About 24% of the students in the intervention group and 27% of the students in the comparison group were lost to analysis at follow-up at sixth grade. The study demonstrated equivalence of baseline scores of students in the intervention and comparison samples included in the analysis.
Most teachers were involved in the study for one year. Two teachers refused to participate in the CWPT program, but agreed for the assessments to take place. Teachers received either three hours of paid university credit or a monetary compensation for their participation in the study.
Comparison group students received their regular reading instruction program and Title I services. CWPT training or implementation was not conducted in the comparison schools. Teachers received either three hours of paid university credit or a monetary compensation for their participation in the study.
The primary outcome measure at grade 6 was the reading subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills–Form U (CTBS–U), 3rd edition. The reading subtest of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) was administered at grade 4, but is not reviewed in this intervention report because of severe attrition of students. Language subtests for both measures were also administered but are not included in this review because they do not reflect outcome domains that are the focus of this Beginning Reading WWC review (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of the outcome measure reviewed for rating purposes).
Most of the participating classrooms were taught by a different teacher each year. The participating teachers received CWPT training each year. Teachers first read the program manual and then discussed with their consultants the changes to be made in their classroom practices. After the initial planning and preparation, consultants helped teachers implement the intervention in their classrooms. Teachers were considered trained when they received a score of 85% or above on the consultants’ observation checklists.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.
Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 521–535.
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