Effectiveness of Reading First for English language learners: Comparison of two programs (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, 2008).
Frasco, R. D. (2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(03A), 141–879.
-
examining34Students, grade1
Read Well® Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: June 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 Read Well®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Read Well® vs. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 2003 |
12 weeks |
Grade 1;
|
89.12 |
81.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test, Fourth Edition (GORT-4) |
Read Well® vs. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 2003 |
12 weeks |
Grade 1;
|
12.00 |
12.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Read Well® vs. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 2003 |
12 weeks |
Grade 1;
|
72.00 |
73.35 |
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: 41%
Male: 59% -
Rural
-
- 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
Colorado
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a rural elementary school in eastern Colorado. English language learners constituted 61% of the school population. Eighty-two percent of the study body qualified for free and reduced-price lunch during the 2007–08 academic school year.
Study sample
The study was based on 36 first-grade English language learner students. Seventeen of these students were randomly assigned to the Read Well ® intervention group and 19 were assigned to the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill control group. Two students attrited from the control group, resulting in 17 intervention group students and 17 control group students for a total of 34 students in the analysis sample. Overall attrition was 5.6% and differential attrition was 10.5%.
Intervention Group
For approximately three months, students received a minimum of 90 minutes of daily instruction in Read Well ® 1, which was utilized as their core reading program. The pacing depended on the level of mastery for each individual participant, allowing students to accelerate or slow down according to their grasp of the material.
Comparison Group
Students in the control group were taught reading using Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 2003 core reading program and also received 90 minutes of daily instruction. The pacing of the program is based on completing a story weekly, with intervention provided for students after giving the unit test during Week 6 of each unit. This study encompassed two skills-based units, or 12 weeks of instruction. Teachers used lesson maps and templates that included recommendations for where to replace or add activities for struggling readers such as English language learner students.
Outcome descriptions
Study measures in the reading achievement domain included the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Nonsense Word Fluency Subtest and Gray’s Oral Reading Test–Fourth Edition (GORT-4). Study measures in the English language development domain included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition (PPVT-III). The study also reports results on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) that are excluded from this report, since the test measures phonemic awareness, which is not part of any English Language Learners domain. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.
Support for implementation
Three teachers and four instructional aides were involved in the study. Teachers and instructional aides received professional development to implement the program.
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).