The Effects of Dialect Awareness Instruction on Nonmainstream American English Speakers
Johnson, Lakeisha; Terry, Nicole Patton; Connor, Carol McDonald; Thomas-Tate, Shurita (2017). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v30 n9 p2009-2038. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156747
-
examining338Students, grades2-4
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2018
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Dialect Awareness (DAWS))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Editing task (researcher created) |
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 2;
|
10.24 |
7.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Morphosyntactic Knowledge Test (MSK) |
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 2;
|
22.48 |
20.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dialect Density Measure (DDM) |
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 2;
|
2.79 |
3.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension |
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 2 (TOSREC Form B);
|
91.92 |
93.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension |
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 2 (TOSREC Form O);
|
92.04 |
93.34 |
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.
-
5% English language learners -
- 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
South
-
Race Asian 4% Black 45% Other or unknown 11% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 66 classrooms in grades 2 to 4 across four public schools located in the southeastern part of the United States. (p. 2026)
Study sample
At the school level, 68 to 84% of students received free or reduced price lunch. Eight percent of the research sample received special education services and 5% of the sample were designated as Limited English Proficient. Out of the 374 students in the sample, 45% were African American, 33% White, 4% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 7% multiracial. (p. 2026)
Intervention Group
Dialect Awareness (DAWS) is a program that introduces students to the concept of home and school English and then also teaches them to contrast home English versus school English. The program discusses dialect use and the appropriateness of formal and informal language in different contexts. It also provides explicit directions on when to use school English for completing tasks. Students participated in the DAWS program four days a week for eight weeks. The program took place for 15 to 20 minutes per day in pull-out groups of two to four students. (pp. 2017-2018)
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual (BAU) and did not receive any pull-out instruction related to dialect awareness. (p. 2026)
Support for implementation
The authors discuss support for implementation for Study 1, which is described in a separate SRG. It is not clear whether the same supports were provided in Study 2, which is discussed in this SRG. However, based on the information from Study 1, the study relied on a team of research assistants to implement the intervention and monitor fidelity to the implementation. It required research assistants to complete a daily record of instructional program activities form. This form helped the authors keep track of the instructional program and any changes made to it. In order to measure how well the protocol was being followed, research assistants also audio recorded a full day of the instructional program once a week. The study's authors reviewed the recordings and also participated in weekly observation sessions of the instructional program. Authors provided as-needed feedback to the research assistants to support adherence to the intervention. (p. 2019)
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).