Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ684359
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 - Spelling subtest |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
461.64 |
461.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Battery Revised for First-Grade (CRAB-R): fluency |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
44.00 |
42.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
456.80 |
485.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson - Reading fluency subtest |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
403.19 |
370.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Assessment of Reading Battery Revised for First-Grade (CRAB-R): comprehension |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
4.30 |
4.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Word Attack |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
480.80 |
473.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson - Letter-Word Identification |
Proactive reading—May et al. (2013) vs. Responsive Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
446.72 |
443.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The interventions were implemented in small groups of three students. It occurred during the normal school day but outside of the core reading classroom activities. It was offered in addition to the enhanced classroom instruction.
"Both the Proactive Reading and Responsive Reading interventions took place in 40 minute sessions, five days per week, from October to May. Both interventions were administered in addition to the enhanced classroom instruction in reading that the comparison group also received. PROACTIVE READING In the Proactive Reading intervention, teachers follow detailed lesson plans that typically contain 7 to 10 short activities, each covering multiple topics. The lessons gradually progressed from learning alphabetic principle to deciding multisyllabic and irregular words to reading narrative stories. Teachers modeled new content, allowed for individual practice, and provided immediate corrective feedback. While the study does not indicate a particular order of the lessons, they cover the following: 1. Learning and reviewing letter-sound correspondences 2. Sounding out words or reading words rapidly 3. Spelling words in isolation 4. Reading decodable connected text 5. Applying comprehension strategies to decodable text. - There is no indication of a home component. - The intervention is implemented by a teacher specially hired for the study. - Materials include detailed lesson plans and fully decodable connected text. - The intervention is scripted. - The study does not indicate that this intervention uses a formative assessment. RESPONSIVE READING In the Responsive Reading intervention, teachers designed each lesson by choosing among a menu of activities. In each lesson, the teacher focused lesson planning on an individual student, so that each student was a ""focus student"" once every three days. The lessons contained five components: 1. In fluency building, (8-10 minutes, combined with assessment) students read a passage with teacher modeling. The instruction was directed primarily towards the focus student. 2. In assessment, (8-10 minutes, combined with fluency building) the teacher assessed the reading performance of the focus student. 3. In letter and word work, (10-12 minutes) teachers provided explicit instruction in phonological awareness skills, including letter sounds and sounding out words. 4. In supported reading, the focus student read a new book, followed by the entire group reading the book together. The teacher assisted the students and asked questions about the text's meaning. 5. In supported writing, (8-10 minutes) students wrote sentences about the new story with assistance from the teacher. - There is no indication of a home component. - The intervention is implemented by a teacher specially hired for the study. - Materials used include instructions for a wide range of activities and reading selections that vary in difficulty. - The intervention is not scripted. - Teachers adjust each lesson based on the performance of the focus student."
"For the only contrast that meets standards, Proactive vs. Responsive, there is no comparison group. In the third group, enhanced classroom instruction; teachers used one of two basal reading programs adopted by the district but were given latitude to supplement or modify the material. The research team provided classroom teachers with student assessment data and a one-day training on how to use assessment data to provide differentiated instruction in the regular classroom. The research team, including the six intervention teachers hired for the study, also offered to help classroom teachers with any concerns they had about literacy instruction or student needs. Note however, that contrasts with this group did not meet standards due to high attrition and lack of baseline equivalence."
"The intervention teachers received 42 hours of training from the authors of each intervention before the study began, as well as an additional 12 hours in the second year. They also participated in half-day in-service meetings each month and received frequent onsite coaching from the developers. The classroom teachers who delivered the enhanced classroom instruction received one day of training on how to use assessment data to provide differentiated instruction. In the second year of the study, classroom teachers received an additional one day training on how to provide differentiated instruction."
Reviewed: February 2009
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 44% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 24% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 76% |
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Enhanced Proactive Reading.
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
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades Practice Guide