Large-Scale Randomized Controlled Trial with 4th Graders Using Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy to Improve Nonfiction Reading Comprehension
Wijekumar, Kausalai Kay; Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Lei, Puiwa (2012). Educational Technology Research and Development, v60 n6 p987-1013. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ986753
-
examining4,856Students, grades4-5
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Short Comparison Text: Main Idea Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
3.46 |
2.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Short Comparison Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
4.25 |
3.71 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Short Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
26.17 |
22.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
17.93 |
15.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
32.12 |
30.42 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
3.54 |
3.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Short Comparison Text: Main Idea Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
3.22 |
2.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
15.36 |
13.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short Comparison Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
3.79 |
3.38 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short Comparison Text: Main Idea Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
3.66 |
2.84 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
3.07 |
2.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
21.21 |
19.57 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
30.44 |
24.87 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short Comparison Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
4.65 |
4.01 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
35.18 |
32.84 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
20.16 |
17.78 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
3.95 |
3.58 |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
Rural, Suburban
Study Details
Setting
The study included fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms from 45 rural and suburban elementary schools, 12 school districts, and two states in the United States.
Study sample
The number of students in the analytic sample, including both fourth- and fifth-grade students, differs by outcome, ranging from 4,035 to 4,856 students. No demographic or sample characteristics were provided on the fourth-grade analytic sample; however, the authors stated that the intervention and comparison groups were balanced on student socioeconomic status, number of English learners, percentage of racial/ethnic minorities, and gender. The 45 schools in the fifth-grade sample are composed of 8% to 14% racial/ethnic minorities and 39% to 44% socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received the ITSS program over the course of the 2009–10 school year. ITSS sessions took place for 30 to 45 minutes a week over 6 to 7 months, which was lower than the developer-recommended dosage, as a partial substitute for the regular language arts curriculum. In fourth-grade classrooms, the recall task of ITSS was removed from the lesson sequence after the first month of instruction because students had difficulty typing. In fifth-grade classrooms, the recall task was implemented as intended.
Comparison Group
Students in comparison classrooms received the typical language arts curriculum, which was the same curriculum used by the intervention group classrooms within the same school except for the partial substitution of ITSS. Total daily and weekly amounts of language arts instruction were the same for both intervention and comparison classrooms.
Support for implementation
The research team conducted ITSS training sessions for the teachers of intervention classrooms during the 2009–10 academic year. Teachers in comparison classrooms were offered the same professional development after the study was completed.
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.
-
Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B.J.F., & Lei, P. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366-379.
-
Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Wijekumar, Kausalai; Lei, Puiwa. (2018). Comparative Signaling Generated for Expository Texts by 4th-8th Graders: Variations by Text Structure Strategy Instruction, Comprehension Skill, and Signal Word. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v31 n9 p1937-1968.
-
Wijekumar, Kausalai; Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Lei, Pui-Wa; Lin, Yu-Chu; Johnson, Lori A.; Spielvogel, James A.; Shurmatz, Kathryn M.; Ray, Melissa; Cook, Michael. (2014). Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Examining Intelligent Tutoring of Structure Strategy for Fifth-Grade Readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v7 n4 p331-357.
Large-Scale Randomized Controlled Trial with 4th Graders Using Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy to Improve Nonfiction Reading Comprehension
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2013
- Single Study Review (105 KB) (findings for Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comparison Text: Main Idea Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.22 |
2.44 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comparsion test: Comparison Competency test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.79 |
3.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
15.36 |
13.48 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Problem/Solution Text: Problem Solution Competency test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.07 |
2.79 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
21.21 |
19.57 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
28.93 |
27.86 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
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).