
Effects of Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs on Limited- and Fluent-English-Proficient Students' Story Comprehension and Thematic Understanding.
Saunders, William M.; Goldenberg, Claude (1999). Elementary School Journal, v99 n4 p277-301. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ582399
-
examining32Students, grades4-5
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2014
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards
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
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.Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2006
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factual comprehension |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
14.88 |
12.12 |
Yes |
|
|
Interpretive comprehension |
Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4–5;
|
5.56 |
3.62 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Urban
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 82% Not Hispanic or Latino 18%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a K–5 elementary school located in an urban area. The majority of students at the school were Hispanic (82%), had limited English proficiency (69%), and qualified for the free or reduced-price lunch program (62%). More than three quarters of the fourth-grade students were performing below grade level in reading, language, and math. The school ranked among the lowest 20% of schools in the district. Schoolwide efforts were underway at the time of the study to improve bilingual programs, English language development program, language arts instruction, and overall academic infrastructure at the school.
Study sample
All 138 English language learners enrolled in three fifth-grade and two fourth-grade classrooms in one school participated in this study. They were matched by language proficiency (limited or fluent) and teachers’ rating of reading skills, and then randomly assigned to four study conditions within each classroom. Twenty-two English language learners were excluded from the final analysis (3 special education students, 4 students enrolled just prior to the study, 12 students not present for some of the activities, and 3 students randomly excluded to provide for a balanced design). The remaining 116 participants were evenly distributed among the four groups (29 per group). Only 32 of these participants in two study groups are of interest for this intervention report: 16 English language learners in the comparison condition and 16 English language learners in the Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs (intervention) condition. These students participated in the study with students fluent in English.
Intervention Group
The study lasted for a period of 10–15 days, including pre- and post-intervention activities. The intervention was implemented over four days. On the first day, English language learners in the Literature Log only group and the Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs group received instruction on Literature Logs in two consecutive 45-minute lessons. On the second day, English language learners in the Instructional Conversation only group and the Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs group received two 45-minute lessons on Instructional Conversations. The same procedures were followed on the third and fourth days, with the order of the lessons reversed (that is, Instructional Conversations lessons on day three and Literature Logs lessons on day four). English language learners in each group also spent at least 45 minutes on creating an illustration and caption summarizing their interpretation of the story “Louella’s Song.”
Comparison Group
English language learners in the comparison group participated in reading and writing activities related to social studies either independently or with a teaching assistant. They also devoted at least 45 minutes to creating an illustration and caption summarizing their interpretation of the story “Louella’s Song.” Saunders and Goldenberg (1999) reported that English language learners in the comparison group did not receive as much direct instructional time from teachers as those in the Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs group.
Outcome descriptions
The effects of the intervention were assessed using several measures, including factual comprehension, interpretive comprehension, theme-explanation essay, and theme-exemplification essay. Although theme-explanation and theme-exemplification essays were measures used in the study, outcomes were not reported in the WWC report because the data reported in the study were the percentage of English language learners whose essays received a high score. Therefore, the measures did not meet WWC standards (see Appendix A2.1 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
The five teacher participants in the study were members of the research and development team implementing the school’s language arts model in Spanish, transition, and mainstream English language arts classrooms. The team was led by two instructional advisors who were able to co-teach and provide assistance in the classrooms on a daily basis. The team met on a bi-monthly basis to study instructional components, view videotapes and live demonstrations, plan instructional units, and evaluate English language learners’ work. All study conditions (including the control) were carried out in each classroom by each of the five teachers.
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).