Acquiring Science and Social Studies Knowledge in Kindergarten through Fourth Grade: Conceptualization, Design, Implementation, and Efficacy Testing of Content-Area Literacy Instruction (CALI)
Connor, Carol McDonald; Dombek, Jennifer; Crowe, Elizabeth C.; Spencer, Mercedes; Tighe, Elizabeth L.; Coffinger, Sean; Zargar, Elham; Wood, Taffeta; Petscher, Yaacov (2017). Journal of Educational Psychology, v109 n3 p301-320. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1136513
-
examining435Students, gradesK-4
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2018
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies (NCER))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Picture Vocabulary |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
102.40 |
101.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Oral Comprehension |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.80 |
106.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.40 |
101.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Postunit science knowledge |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.06 |
16.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Postunit social studies knowledge |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.70 |
12.90 |
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.
-
- 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
Florida
-
Race Black 10% Other or unknown 13% White 77%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 40 kindergarten through grade 4 classrooms across six schools in one large school district in the panhandle region of Florida.
Study sample
The sample included students who were 75% White, 10% African American, and the remaining students belonged to other ethnicities. Approximately 50% of students qualified for free- and reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
CALI is a content-based method for literacy instruction that was delivered during literacy blocks. The literacy block, as described by the study authors, is a 1- to 2-hour block of time dedicated to reading. The intervention includes two social studies and two science units. Each unit was delivered over a 3-week time period, generally 4 days per week for approximately 15 to 20 minutes per session. The intervention was delivered by teachers specifically hired by the research team. These teachers were either certified or attending university programs to become certified. Intervention teachers were carefully monitored to ensure that they were implementing the program with fidelity. The project director provided ongoing feedback and support when it was observed that elements of the lesson were not being implemented as intended. Instruction was provided in small groups of up to five students that were formed based on students’ passage comprehension scores at pretest. One group had passage comprehension scores below grade level (standard score < 90), a second group had passage comprehension scores at grade level (standard score between 90 and 110), and a third group had passage comprehension scores above grade level (standard score above 110). The intervention is designed to change groups over time to reflect changes in student achievement; however, in this study, students remained in their original groups throughout the school year. In addition, classroom teachers covered science and social studies topics in their regular classroom programming outside of the literacy block, focusing on topics similar to content included in the CALI intervention. The researchers thus presume that intervention group youth had more exposure to social studies and science content, but less time on core reading instruction than comparison group youth.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction from the classroom teacher during the literacy block. Based on researcher observations, most of the literacy block instruction for the comparison condition used the Houghton Mifflin literacy curriculum without a focus on science or social studies. Although not observed by the researchers, intervention and comparison group classroom teachers reported that they followed the Florida Sunshine State Standards for social studies and science using Scott Foresman curricula. These standards covered content similar to the CALI curriculum.
Support for implementation
Teachers were hired by the research team to implement the intervention. These teachers were trained in a full day workshop and participated in weekly project meetings. The project director observed teachers in the first week of implementation and observed the teachers and provided feedback until they were implementing the intervention as intended. Then teachers were observed monthly. Intervention group classrooms also still had their regular classroom 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).