Engaging Struggling Adolescent Readers to Improve Reading Skills [Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. business as usual]
Kim, James S.; Hemphill, Lowry; Troyer, Margaret; Thomson, Jenny M.; Jones, Stephanie M.; LaRusso, Maria D.; Donovan, Suzanne (2017). Reading Research Quarterly, v52 n3 p357-382 Jul-Sep 2017. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1146095
-
examining402Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE): Efficiency of reading for basic comprehension subtest |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
355.12 |
349.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE): Reading comprehension subtest |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
340.47 |
338.23 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE): Vocabulary subtest |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
368.17 |
364.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE): Word recognition/decoding subtest |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
357.08 |
351.91 |
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.
-
16% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Asian 2% Black 20% Native American 1% Other or unknown 27% White 50% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in eight middle schools in the northeastern United States during the 2013-14 school year. Eight Title I schools from four school districts participated in the study, representing both urban and rural/suburban locales. The intervention occurred in school classrooms during an elective or remediation period within the school day.
Study sample
All sample members were students in grades 6-8 and scored below proficient on the 2013 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System English Language Arts Assessment. At the time of assignment, 2.07% were Asian, 19.67% were Black, 0.62% were Native American, 50.31% were White, 23.81% were Hispanic, and 27.33% did not specify. English language learners made up 16.36% of the sample while 73.29% had free or reduced lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention group received the Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention (STARI), a reading intervention designed to increase reading engagement and skills among adolescents with reading difficulties. STARI focused on essential reading skills such as decoding and fluency, while also teaching meaning-making strategies that are necessary for comprehension. STARI was primarily a reading curriculum, organized into a series of theme-based units that are chosen because they are of interest to adolescents and because they are relevant to adolescents' lives. The intervention included novels and shorter reading passages with a lexile level that is appropriate for students who have demonstrated low performance on reading achievement tests. STARI was also designed to promote social interactions that are necessary for student engagement. Specifically, STARI used four types of peer collaboration: 1) partner-assisted fluency practice, 2) reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies, 3) partner reading and 4) responding to novels and nonfiction texts and peer debate. The intervention lasted an entire school year and was administered during an elective or remediation period between three and five class periods a week.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction, which varied across and within schools. Of the comparison group students, 70% received an alternative reading intervention. Some of these alternative interventions were designed by teachers in the schools, while others were proprietary interventions. Of the comparison group students, 30% received general academic support, such as a study skills course or state test preparation.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended a three-day summer institute as an introduction to STARI. Furthermore, they received regular in-class guidance from a project literacy coach, who observed, offered feedback, modeled instructional strategies, and provided email and phone consultations. Additionally, the authors collected data from students and teachers regarding the quality of the STARI implementation. Implementation fidelity was operationalized using observational data from teachers' delivery of the intervention and students' engagement with the intervention.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2019
- Grant Competition (findings for Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Word Recognition and Decoding |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Efficacy of Reading for Basic Comprehension |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Morphological Awareness |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Vocabulary |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Sentence |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation: Reading Comprehension |
Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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, Urban
-
- 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Asian 2% Black 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in middle schools in the northeastern United States during the 2013-14 school year. Eight Title I schools from four school districts participated in the study, representing both urban and rural/suburban locales. The intervention occurred in school classrooms during an elective or remediation period within the school day.
Study sample
All sample members were students in Grades 6 through 8, and all had scored below proficient on the 2013 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System English language arts assessment. At the time of assignment, 69.1% of intervention students were identified as low-income, 49.3% identified as European American, 19.3% identified as African American, 25.6% identified as Latino, 1.54% of the students identified as Asian, 0.5% of the students identified as Native American/Pacific Islander, and 3.9% of the students identified as Mixed/other. Additionally, 30.0% of intervention students were special education students and 13.0% were English learners, meaning at least 57.0% were general education students. At the time of assignment, 76.4% of comparison students were identified as low-income, 51.3% identified as European American, 20.0% identified as African American, 22.7% identified as Latino, 2.5% of the students identified as Asian, 0.7% of the students identified as Native American/Pacific Islander, and 2.9% of the students identified as Mixed/other. Additionally, 35.2% of intervention students were special education students and 18.5% were English learners, meaning at least 46.3% were general education students.
Intervention Group
The Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention (STARI) is a reading intervention designed to increase reading engagement and skills among adolescents with reading difficulties. STARI focuses on essential reading skills such as decoding and fluency, while also teaching meaning-making strategies that are necessary for comprehension. STARI is primarily a reading curriculum, organized into a series of theme-based units that are chosen because they are of interest to adolescents and because they are relevant to adolescents' lives. The curriculum is composed of novels and shorter reading passages with a lexile level that is appropriate for students who have demonstrated low performance on reading achievement tests. STARI is also designed to promote social interactions that are necessary for student engagement. Specifically, STARI uses four types of peer collaboration: 1) partner-assisted fluency practice, reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies, partner reading and responding to novels and nonfiction texts, and peer debate. Students received the intervention during an elective period or a whole-school intervention period. The intervention lasted an entire school year and was administered during an elective or remediation period between three and five class periods a week.
Comparison Group
Comparison conditions ("business as usual") varied both across and within schools. Of the comparison group students, 70% received an alternative reading intervention. Some of these alternative interventions were designed by teachers in the schools, while others were proprietary interventions. Of the comparison group students, 30% received general academic support, such as a study skills course or state test preparation.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended a three-day summer institute as an introduction to STARI. Furthermore, they received regular in-class guidance from a project literacy coach, who observed, offered feedback, modeled instructional strategies, and provided email and phone consultation. Additionally, the authors note that they evaluated the quality of the STARI implementation through data collection of both students and teachers. Implementation fidelity was operationalized using observational data from teachers' delivery of the intervention and students' engagement with the intervention.
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).