The Enhanced Reading Opportunities study final report: The impact of supplemental literacy courses for struggling ninth-grade readers [Analysis of Xtreme Reading] (NCEE 2010-4021).
Somers, M. A., Corrin, W., Sepanik, S., Salinger, T., Levin, J., & Zmach, C. (2010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511811
-
examining2,587Students, grade9
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Xtreme Reading)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
0.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.50 |
21.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
44.80 |
43.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
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.
-
Urban
Study Details
Setting
Ninth-grade classrooms were nested within high schools located predominantly in large and midsize cities. All schools enrolled more than 1,000 students in grades 9 through 12, averaging 1,685 students per school. Thirty-eight percent of the students in the participating schools were eligible for Title I services and that 47% of the students were approved for free or reduced-price lunch.
Study sample
The study sample consisted of ninth-grade students reading 1 to 5 years below grade level. The study did not report other sample characteristics.
Intervention Group
The Xtreme Reading program aimed to improve student's skills by: "(1) student motivation and engagement; (2) reading fluency, or the ability to read quickly, accurately, and with appropriate expression; (3) vocabulary, or word knowledge; (4) comprehension, or making meaning from text; (5) phonics and phonemic awareness (for students who could still benefit from instruction in these areas); and (6) writing." In addition to improving general literacy skills the program also target improving content literacy (e.g., modeling, and explaining context-specific strategies that are most applicable in English, science, and social studies texts. RAAL is a year-long course that replaces a ninth-graders elective course (i.e., supplement to their regular ELA classes).
Comparison Group
Rather that attending the Xtreme Reading supplemental class, students randomly assigned to the comparison condition attended their school’s regularly offered elective classes.
Support for implementation
Xtreme Reading teachers attended a summer training institute held prior to each year of implementation. In addition, they attended one 2-day booster training sessions each year. Onsite support is also provided by the Xtreme Reading developers through instructional coaching visits to the schools.
Xtreme Reading Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2020
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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 Xtreme Reading.
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.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2016
- Grant Competition
- 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
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.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Xtreme Reading)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores math |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.07 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Overall |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
22.30 |
21.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Social Studies |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
21.20 |
20.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Science |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
24.80 |
24.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Overall |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
46.20 |
45.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Social Studies |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
44.10 |
42.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Science |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
50.60 |
49.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Attendance rate |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
91.90 |
91.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever Suspended |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
32.70 |
31.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Math |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
22.80 |
22.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Social Studies |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.05 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Attendance rate |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
94.10 |
94.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Science |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
-0.06 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Science |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.10 |
0.13 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Math |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
47.20 |
47.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores math |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
-0.02 |
0.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Social Studies |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
-0.12 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever Suspended |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
33.20 |
34.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.10 |
0.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
21.50 |
21.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
44.80 |
43.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
Race Black 47% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69%
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores Social Studies |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.10 |
-0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Science |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.05 |
-0.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Math |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
21.90 |
20.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Overall |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
20.50 |
19.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Science |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
22.00 |
21.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores math |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.09 |
0.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
Attendance rate |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
92.90 |
92.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Science |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
45.80 |
44.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Social Studies |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.05 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Overall |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
42.60 |
42.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Attendance rate |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
90.50 |
90.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Social Studies |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
20.60 |
20.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Social Studies |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
42.30 |
42.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation Math |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
43.90 |
43.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores Science |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.06 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever Suspended |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
30.80 |
32.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores math |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
-0.04 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever Suspended |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
31.70 |
35.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.13 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
18.80 |
18.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Credit Accumulation English Language Arts (ELA) |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Follow-Up Year |
Complete sample;
|
40.20 |
39.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
End of Program Year |
Complete sample;
|
0.00 |
-0.03 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
Race Black 47% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69%
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).