Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107–131. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ963705
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension |
Targeted reading intervention—Amendum et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample - focal students only;
|
444.27 |
432.94 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
"Among focal students only, 39 percent of the treatment group was white, compared to 17 percent of the comparison group. Of the focal group, 26 percent of the treatment group was African American, while 40 percent of the comparison group was. 61 percent of the focal treatment group was male, while 60 percent of the focal comparison group was male. 54 percent of the focal treatment group was in kindergarten, compared to 44 percent of the comparison focal group. Overall, the authors excluded students with severe disabilities and without basic conversational English skills."
"Teachers implemented the intervention individually to students (although they may eventually group 2 or 3 students with similar needs together to receive instruction). The intervention would occur in the classroom; while the teacher focused on one student, the other students would be at literacy centers, working independently in the classroom, or receiving instruction via a teaching assistant. Sessions were 15-20 minutes. The teacher would rotate the student that was the focus of the intervention throughout the year so that all five students in the classroom received the intervention (the teacher would move on to a different student once the first student had ""accelerated sufficiently to be able to better learn from the general classroom environment""). The intervention lasted from October to May. Each TRI session includes three components: (1) 2-5 minutes on re-reading for fluency; (2) 6-10 minutes for word work; and (3) 7-10 minutes for guided oral reading. The first component (re-reading for fluency) requires the student to read a passage they had read the previous day and also may include the teacher modeling fluency reading with expression. The goal is to increase automatic word identification and general reading fluency. The second component (word work) involved teachers selected various strategies to teach phonological decoding and sight word recognition. The strategies included teaching the alphabetic principle; phoneme-grapheme relationship; phonemic segmenting and blending; decoding phonemes; sight word practice; ""chunking"" multisyllabic words. The third component involved instruction on comprehension strategies. Teachers scaffolded summarizing, predicting, and making connections to concepts read. In each session, the teacher and student would read a book and have a conversation about it to improve comprehension. Teachers would also give support on word identification and vocabulary. As discussed in more detail in D63 below, TRI teachers also received multiple professional development opportunities. "
Teachers received multiple professional development opportunities to help implement the intervention. First, there was an in-person summer institute for the teachers, on-site consultants, and principals that reviewed the TRI content and practiced specific strategies from the program. Second, teachers were given weekly or biweekly literacy coaching during TRI implementation via web-conferencing. Literacy coaches could provide real-time, interactive feedback on the teacher's implementation of the program either directly during the session or in a separate meeting immediately following the session. Third, teachers had weekly web-conferencing meetings with other teachers implementing the program and with on-site consultants. In these meetings, teachers would discuss implementation with focal students and the group would problem solve any commonly occurring issues. Finally, teachers had monthly 2-hour (or bimonthly 3.5-hour) web-conferencing professional development. Content of these sessions included additional TRI strategies, advanced problem-solving, or other content that teachers thought would be useful in their implementation of TRI.
Reviewed: February 2016
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.
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