An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates.
Woods, D. E. (2007). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
-
examining116Students, grades6-8
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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 Fast ForWord®.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.READ 180® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2009
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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 180®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest, Spring 2004 |
Grades 6, 7, 8;
|
44.81 |
45.21 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2003-04 Cohort: Gr 7 |
Grade 7;
|
46.56 |
44.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 6, 7, and 8: African-American students;
|
42.55 |
43.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2003-04 Cohort: Gr 6 |
Grade 6;
|
41.00 |
44.05 |
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.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
Virginia
-
Race Asian 3% Black 62% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Not Hispanic or Latino 97%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in an urban middle school in southeastern Virginia.
Study sample
Three annual cohorts of middle-school students participated in READ 180 from 2003 to 2006. Based on reading pretest scores and teacher recommendations, the school guidance counselor assigned students in grades 6, 7, and 8 to either the computer-based READ 180 program or the school’s traditional reading-remediation program. In total, the 2003–04 school year analysis sample included 58 students who participated in READ 180 and 58 students who were in the comparison group. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes by grade and ethnicity can be found in Appendix A4.1.
Intervention Group
The intervention group participated in READ 180 every other day for 90 minutes for the entire school year, in addition to a daily 55-minute language-arts class and 20 minutes of sustained silent reading. Because of technical problems during the first year, the fidelity of READ 180 program implementation was downgraded from Level One (the highest level of fidelity) to Level Two, according to the READ 180 Research Protocol and Tools (Scholastic, Inc., 2004). All implementation indicators were met, with the exception of a daily class schedule of 90-minute blocks five days a week. The study reported students’ outcomes after the first year of program implementation.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received 90 minutes of remedial reading every other day for one quarter of the school year. The traditional reading remediation program provided focused, skill-based instruction and opportunities to integrate writing and thinking skills. In addition, comparison students participated in 20 minutes of sustained silent reading and 55 minutes of daily language-arts instruction.
Outcome descriptions
For both pretests and posttests, the author used the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1. The Standardized Test for Assessment of Reading (STAR) and the Scholastic Reading Inventory were also used in the study for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 cohorts of students that were not included in this report.
Support for implementation
READ 180 teachers, all of whom were licensed reading specialists, received comprehensive instructional materials, professional development support, and training in best teaching practices. Comparison-group teachers, all of whom were licensed reading specialists, received a limited professional-development component. No additional details on the professional development provided to comparison group teachers were provided.
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).