Word Knowledge and Comprehension Effects of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Middle School Students
McKeown, Margaret G.; Crosson, Amy C.; Moore, Debra W.; Beck, Isabel L. (2018). American Educational Research Journal, v55 n3 p572-616. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1180092
-
examining105Students, grades6-7
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2018
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Morphological awareness measure (researcher designed) - Recognition |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 6; Students who were in the low middle to high-middle scores of the GMRT were selected for these analyses.;
|
6.53 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Morphological awareness measure (researcher designed) - Comprehension |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 6; Students who were in the low middle to high-middle scores of the GMRT were selected for these analyses.;
|
13.82 |
11.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT) Level 6 Forms S&T: Extended Scale Scores |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 6;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Text comprehension measure (researcher designed) - Pets |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 6;
|
14.67 |
13.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Morphological awareness measure (researcher designed) - Meaning |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 6; Students who were in the low middle to high-middle scores of the GMRT were selected for these analyses.;
|
4.24 |
2.25 |
Yes |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Text comprehension measure (researcher designed) - 7th grade |
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 7;
|
12.48 |
10.93 |
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.
-
- 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 25% White 75% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one school in a working-class neighborhood in in the Northeast United States. The study included five grade 6 classrooms in year 1 and four grade 7 classrooms in year 2. (p. 13, 23)
Study sample
Among the grade 6 sample, 25 percent of students were black while the remaining 75 percent were described as European American. Fifty-five percent were eligible to receive free or reduced price lunch, and none were English learners. No specific details are available for the grade 7 sample. (p. 13)
Intervention Group
Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (RAVE) is an intervention aimed at improving academic vocabulary knowledge and comprehension. In both years of the study, the intervention was delivered over 22 weeks, with seven cycles of daily scripted lessons. Each academic vocabulary word was introduced by using it in genuine contexts and providing examples of multiple uses of the word, with definitions built around "core meanings" and prompts to help students understand meaning and contextual use. Follow-up activities were aimed at actively using the target words. The intervention also discussed how similar words can be constructed using Latin roots (pp. 11-12).
Comparison Group
Comparison group students received the same dosage of vocabulary instruction as intervention group students. Comparison classrooms used a vocabulary component that was embedded in their reading curriculum. (p. 14)
Support for implementation
Teachers participated in a half-day workshop prior to implementation of the intervention. Teachers were provided notebooks for all lessons and individual student notebooks. Teacher notebooks had activities and scripted lessons. Student notebooks had contexts and definitions for the introductory lessons and activity pages for most activities. The research team observed lessons one to three times in each of the seven cycles and met with teachers informally about 7 times per year to share feedback. During these informal meetings, research team members shared feedback from detailed field notes. (p. 14)
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).