Stevens, Robert J.; Durkin, Scott (1992). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED350594
Reviewed: November 2011
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 Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading Comprehension |
Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW) vs. Business as usual |
Spring of 6th grade |
Grade 6;
|
24.30 |
23.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Reading Vocabulary |
Student Team Reading and Writing (STRW) vs. Business as usual |
Spring of 6th grade |
Grade 6;
|
18.20 |
18.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in six middle schools in an urban school district in Maryland. The student populations in the schools ranged from 27% to 99% minority (median of 74.5%) and from 38% to 77% received free or reduced-price lunch (median of 57.5%).
This study is a quasi-experiment conducted in six urban middle schools during the 1989–90 academic year. Classes in the three treatment schools were matched with classes in the three comparison schools on California Achievement Test (CAT) total reading pretest scores. Participants were sixth-grade students. The study’s analytic sample included 455 students in 20 treatment classrooms and 768 students in 34 comparison classrooms.
In the intervention schools, Student Team Reading was implemented for one full academic year and included two major components: (1) literature-based activities (including partner reading, treasure hunts, word mastery, story retelling, story-related writing, and quizzes) and (2) explicit instruction in comprehension strategies (such as identifying main ideas and themes, drawing conclusions, making predictions, and understanding figurative language). The program used a combination of teacher-directed instruction and cooperative learning in heterogeneous teams. Teams were given rewards and recognition based on performance and improvement of each team member.
Comparison group teachers used traditional methods and curriculum materials. In reading, they often used basal series and focused instruction on isolated skills. Students read silently and aloud (with one student reading while the rest of the class follows along). Most seatwork time was spent on independent class work completing worksheet activities and practicing reading skills; at times, students read silently; at other times, they read orally in turns. Students typically did little to no extended writing that was related to reading activities.
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the CAT. Two CAT subtests were used in the study: Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension. The fifth-grade scores were used as the pretest data; the sixth-grade scores were used as the posttest data. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Intervention group teachers took part in three half-day training sessions that included how to implement the classroom processes and the rationale behind the processes. During the training session, trainers acted as the “teachers,” and the teachers acted as the students. Teachers also received a detailed manual of the Student Team Reading program, curriculum materials, and textbooks. During the school year, teachers also received coaching and took part in periodic after-school meetings to provide feedback/discuss implementation questions. Teachers were monitored by Student Team Reading staff four times a week over a six-week period.
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