The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early Impact and Implementation Findings. NCEE 2008-4015
Kemple, James J.; Corrin, William; Nelson, Elizabeth; Salinger, Terry; Herrmann Suzannah; Drummond, Kathryn (2008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499778
-
examining2,329Students, grade9
Reading Apprenticeship® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
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 Reading Apprenticeship®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 2;
|
90.43 |
89.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
End of school year posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 1;
|
89.88 |
88.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
End of school year posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 1;
|
93.33 |
92.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 2;
|
93.59 |
94.02 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
Race Black 41% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 17 schools located in 10 school districts across the United States.
Study sample
The study is a randomized controlled trial that used a two-stage random assignment design. First, 34 eligible schools were randomly assigned to implement one of two supplemental literacy programs: 17 schools were assigned to Reading Apprenticeship® and 17 to Xtreme Reading. Second, in each of the 17 schools assigned to Reading Apprenticeship®, 9th-grade students were randomly assigned to Reading Apprenticeship® or to the control group. Eligible students were defined as those who were reading at least two years below grade level. The study includes two cohorts of 9th-grade students: Cohort 1 was formed in the 2005/06 school year and consisted of 686 ninth-grade students who received Reading Apprenticeship® and 454 ninth-grade students in the control group who did not. Cohort 2 was formed in the 2006/07 school year and consisted of 645 ninth-grade students who received Reading Apprenticeship® and 470 ninth-grade students in the control group who did not. Overall and differential attrition rates of student attrition were low for Cohort 1 (30% and 6%, respectively) and Cohort 2 (36% and 3%, respectively).
Intervention Group
The intervention group received the Reading Apprenticeship® Academic Literacy course as a supplemental intervention that replaced a 9th-grade elective class, rather than a core academic class. Therefore, students in the intervention group continued to attend their regular English language arts classes. Reading Apprenticeship® Academic Literacy includes a detailed curriculum that is guided by the concept of “flexible fidelity” (i.e., teachers have flexibility in how they implement the curriculum in their day-to-day activities). Students attended Reading Apprenticeship® classes for about 11 hours per month, on average. The study reported students’ outcomes after 7.5 to 9 months of program implementation.
Comparison Group
The control group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum and continued their participation in any regularly scheduled elective class (such as career/technical education, art, physical education, health, or foreign language).
Outcome descriptions
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the reading comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). For the posttest, students also took the GRADE vocabulary subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Support for implementation
Teachers took part in professional development activities prior to the start of the school year and on an ongoing basis throughout the school year. Training included one 5-day summer training institute as well as two 2-day booster sessions during the school year. They also received three 2-day coaching visits during the year and had access to a special online listserv.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Corrin, W., Somers, M., Kemple, J. J., Nelson, E., & Sepanik, S. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the second year of implementation (NCEE report no. 2009-4036). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
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).