Impact of a Technology-Mediated Reading Intervention on Adolescents' Reading Comprehension [Comprehension Circuit Training vs. business as usual]
Fogarty, Melissa; Clemens, Nathan; Simmons, Deborah; Anderson, Leah; Davis, John; Smith, Ashley; Wang, Huan; Kwok, Oi-man; Simmons, Leslie E.; Oslund, Eric (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n2 p326-353. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135807
-
examining198Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency: EasyCBM passage |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
134.95 |
138.94 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.48 |
85.47 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.59 |
92.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test 5th Edition |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.39 |
27.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT-4) reading comprehension subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.07 |
88.95 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.34 |
95.22 |
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.
-
10% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
Texas
-
Race Asian 3% Black 30% Native American 1% Other or unknown 40% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three schools in two school districts in Texas. One school enrolled students in grades 6-8 and the other two schools enrolled students in grades 7-8. Participating classes were reading intervention classes, with a total of 16 classes participating in the study. All participating classes at each school were taught by the same teacher, so there were a total of three teachers participating in the study.
Study sample
The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) intervention group (n=112) was 54% female, 31% White, 28% Black, 18% Hispanic, 18% multiple ethnicities, 4% Asian, and 1% American Indian. Forty percent of students were in grade 6, 30% were in grade 7, and 30% were in grade 8. Sixty-two percent were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, 8% were English learners, and 9% were eligible for special education services. The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the comparison group (n=116) was 48% female, 23% White, 31% Black, 34% Hispanic, 10% multiple ethnicities, 1% Asian, and 1% American Indian. Fifty-six percent of students were in grade 6, 24% were in grade 7, and 20% were in grade 8. Seventy-two percent were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, 11% were English learners, and 8% were eligible for special education services.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Comprehension Circuit Training is a reading intervention that uses video modules on an electronic tablet to deliver services. Comprehension Circuit Training lessons focused on teaching students to monitor their own understanding through self-questioning and brief discussions with reading partners. Each lesson consisted of four components: opening comprehension circuit, warm-up station, reading core station, and knowledge flex station. Teachers facilitated the intervention by monitoring students, promoting text discussions, prompting and clarifying student responses, providing vocabulary instruction, and extending students' understanding. Instruction was organized in 10 levels. All students began at Level 1 and followed a standardized sequence of lessons. Each level consisted of four lessons, and each lesson was intended to last three days. Lessons were designed to be 50 minutes in duration and to be implemented three days per week. The entire Comprehension Circuit Training intervention was designed to last between 50 and 70 school days. Teachers selected specific implementation days.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was supplemental reading intervention classes. Teachers were told to maintain their typical instruction for comparison classes and were instructed not to use any of the practices or materials from the Comprehension Circuit Training intervention class. Researchers conducted random observations of comparison classes. Classroom activities observed included introducing new vocabulary words, utilizing graphic organizers, providing background knowledge, and reading. Teachers used a range of reading methods, including having students read individually or in pairs, reading together as a class, or with audio-recordings.
Support for implementation
Research staff provided professional development and support in small groups or individually. At initial meetings, teachers met individually with research staff to review implementation procedures. Teachers received iPads with instructional videos to view on their own time. Researchers held a follow-up meeting to review each component of the Comprehension Circuit Training. Teachers received a document describing their role as facilitators of each Comprehension Circuit Training component and received an implementation guide with a breakdown of each lesson, the instructional focus, student tasks, and teacher tasks. Research staff provided ongoing support to teachers as requested.
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2017
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.83 |
95.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.59 |
92.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT): Comprehension subscale |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.39 |
27.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.07 |
88.95 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Reading |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
1500.54 |
1476.16 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.95 |
85.31 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
132.91 |
138.94 |
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.
-
10% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
Texas
-
Race Asian 3% Black 29% Native American 1% Other or unknown 14% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three schools in two school districts in Texas. One school enrolled students in grades 6 - 8 and the other two schools enrolled students in grades 7 -8. Participating classes were reading intervention classes, with a total of 16 classes participating in the study. All participating classes at each school were taught by the same teacher, so there were a total of three teachers participating in the study.
Study sample
The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the CCT intervention group (n=112) was 54% female, 31% white, 28% black, 18% Hispanic, 18% multiple ethnicities, 4% Asian and 1% American Indian. 40% of students were in 6th grade, 30% were in 7th grade, and 30% were in 8th grade. Sixty-two percent were eligible for free/reduced price lunch, 8% were English Learners, and 9% were eligible for special education services. The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the comparison group (n=116) was 48% female, 23% white, 31% black, 34% Hispanic, 10% multiple ethnicities, 1% Asian and 1% American Indian. 56% of students were in 6th grade, 24% were in 7th grade, and 20% were in 8th grade. Seventy-two percent were eligible for free/reduced price lunch, 11% were English Learners, and 8% were eligible for special education services.
Intervention Group
CCT is a multicomponent reading intervention that uses video modules on an electronic tablet to deliver services. CCT lessons focused on teaching students to monitor their own understanding through self-questioning and brief discussions with reading partners. Each lesson consisted of four components: opening comprehension circuit, warm-up station, reading core station, and knowledge flex station. Teachers facilitated the intervention by monitoring students, promoting text discussions, prompting and clarifying student responses, providing vocabulary instruction, and extending students' understanding. Instruction was organized in 10 levels. All students began at Level 1 and followed a standardized sequence of lessons. Each level consisted of four lessons, and each lesson was intended to last three days. Lessons were designed to be 50 minutes in duration and to be implemented three days per week. The entire CCT intervention was designed to last from between 50 and 70 school days. Teachers selected specific implementation days.
Comparison Group
Teachers were told to maintain their typical instruction for comparison classes and were instructed not to use any of the practices or materials from the CCT intervention class. Researchers conducted random observations of comparison classes. Classroom activities observed included introducing new vocabulary words, utilizing graphic organizers, providing background knowledge, and reading. Teachers used a range of reading methods, including having students read individually or in pairs, reading together as a class, or with audio-recordings.
Support for implementation
Research staff provided professional development and support in either small groups or individually. At initial meetings, teachers met individually with research staff to review implementation procedures. Teachers received iPads with instructional videos to view on their own time. Researchers held a follow-up meeting to review each component of the CCT. Teachers received a document describing their role as facilitators of each CCT component and received an implementation guide with a breakdown of each lesson, the instructional focus, student tasks, and teacher tasks. Research staff provided ongoing support to teachers as requested.
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).