The Effects of Dialect Awareness Instruction on Non-Mainstream American English Speakers
Johnson, L., Terry, NP., Connor, CMD., and Thomas-Tate, S. (2017). Reading and Writing, 30(9), 2009-2038 .
-
examining77Students, grades2-4
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2018
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Editing)
- 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) |
Editing vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 1: Editing vs. control;
|
83.08 |
73.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dialect Variation (DVAR) |
Editing vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 1 - Editing vs. BAU;
|
45.78 |
49.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dialect Density Measure (DDM) |
Editing vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Study 1 - Editing vs. BAU;
|
2.09 |
1.84 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Editing task (researcher created) |
Editing vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample (no 2nd graders);
|
80.13 |
71.87 |
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.
-
1% 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
Florida
-
Race Black 95% Other or unknown 3% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Not Hispanic or Latino 98%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 14 classrooms across two public schools located in Northeast Florida. The study included students in second, third, and fourth grade. (p. 2016)
Study sample
At the school level, approximately 93% of students received free or reduced price lunch. The study presented demographic information across all three study conditions. Eighteen percent of study participants received special education services and 1% were Limited English Proficient. About ninety five percent of study participants were African American, 2% Hispanic, 2% white, and 1% multiracial. (p. 2016)
Intervention Group
The Editing intervention was an instructional program developed specifically for the study that focused on implicit training around dialect shifting. The intervention described the mainstream American English (MAE) grammatical features that should be used in writing. The Editing program focused on receptive and expressive language activities in which students engaged in practices related to creating and editing sentences and stories. Students participated in the Editing program four days a week for four weeks. The program took place for 15 to 20 minutes per day in pull-out groups of two to four students. (pp. 2016-2017)
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction (BAU) and did not receive any implicit or explicit pull-out instruction related to dialect awareness. (p. 2016)
Support for implementation
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).