Integrating literacy and science instruction in high school biology: Impact on teacher practice, student engagement, and student achievement.
Greenleaf, Cynthia; Hanson, Thomas; Herman, Joan; Litman, Cindy; Madden, Sarah; Rosen, Rachel; Boscardin, Christy; Schneider, Steve; & Silver, David (2009). National Science Foundation. https://www2.wested.org/www-static/sli/downloads/nsf-final-report.pdf.
-
examining1,236Students, grades9-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): History |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): History |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): History- Reading Comprehension |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology - Reading comprehension |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): History- Reading Comprehension |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology - Reading comprehension |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): History- English Language Arts (ELA) |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology - English Language Arts (ELA) |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): History- English Language Arts (ELA) |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional history sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology - English Language Arts (ELA) |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California Longitudinal biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Biology |
Professional Development in Reading Apprenticeship vs. Business as usual |
2 years |
California cross sectional biology sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
29% English language learners -
Female: 53%
Male: 47% -
- 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
-
Race Asian 10% Black 6% Other or unknown 35% White 13% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 36% Not Hispanic or Latino 64%
Reading Apprenticeship® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, and the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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
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.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).