The effectiveness of Project Read on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities.
Bussjaeger, J. J. (1993). (Master's thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 1993). Masters Abstracts International, 31 (04), 54-1480.
-
examining14Students, grades4-5
Project Read Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 Project Read.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Project Read vs. literature-based instruction |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
3.57 |
1.57 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest |
Project Read vs. Literature-based instruction |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
3.71 |
1.43 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Project Read vs. Literature-based instruction |
Posttest |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
0.71 |
0.42 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with students with learning disabilities from one elementary school in southern California. Students were enrolled in grades 4 and 5. The two study groups were instructed in the same classroom, at the same time, with the two groups sitting at opposite sides of the classroom, which was divided by a portable wall.
Study sample
The sample for this study included a total of 14 students with learning disabilities in grades 4 and 5. All students in the study were identified as learning disabled based on definitions from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the California Code of Regulations and had been placed in a special day class by school district staff. Two groups of students were formed by matching pairs on gender, grade level, and pretest reading achievement scores. The two groups were then assigned randomly to intervention (Project Read ® Phonology) or control (literature-based) conditions. Prior to the study, all of the participating students received one month of instruction in Project Read ® Phonology and at least one year of literature-based instruction. Pretest and posttest data were collected at the start and end of the six-week intervention period by the study author. All students were from low socioeconomic households and were limited English proficient; six were female and eight were male; six were 4th graders and eight were 5th graders.
Intervention Group
Students with learning disabilities who were assigned to Project Read ® Phonology received instruction using the Project Read ® Phonology Guide. Project Read ® Phonology instruction was delivered 20 minutes a day, four days a week, for six weeks. Project Read ® Phonology students participated in regular basal reading programs for the remaining 1.5 hours of daily reading instruction.
Comparison Group
Students with learning disabilities in the comparison group participated in “literature-based instruction” for 20 minutes a day, four days a week, for six weeks. Comparison students also participated in regular basal reading programs for the remaining 1.5 hours of daily reading instruction.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were alphabetics and reading comprehension. Alphabetics (letter knowledge) was measured by administration of the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised (WJ–R) and the Reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised (WRAT–R). Reading comprehension was measured by administration of the Passage Comprehension subtest of the WJ–R. The assessments were individually administered in English. Pretesting and posttesting were done prior to and immediately following the six-week intervention period. For each of these outcomes, the author reported gain scores (posttest mean–pretest mean) for the Project Read ® Phonology and comparison groups. Posttest standard deviations were not reported, so it was not possible for the WWC to confirm the author’s findings, nor could the WWC calculate an effect size or an improvement index. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.
Support for implementation
The study author was the lead teacher and received 12 hours of training in the phonology component of Project Read ®, plus another 18 hours of training in the reading comprehension and written expression components of Project Read ®. An instructional assistant was trained in the use of Project Read ® Phonology by the lead teacher for six hours. The lead teacher and instructional assistant also participated in 40 hours of workshop training in literature-based and whole language instruction. The lead teacher and instructional assistant alternated weekly between the Project Read ® Phonology group and the literature-based comparison group. The lead teacher was a credentialed special education teacher. Both instructors had 10 years of experience working with students with learning disabilities.
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).