Individualizing a Web-Based Structure Strategy Intervention for Fifth Graders' Comprehension of Nonfiction
Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Wijekumar, Kausalai K.; Lin, Yu-Chu (2011). Journal of Educational Psychology, v103 n1 p140-168. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ914858
-
examining131Students, grade5
Distance Learning Rapid Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2020
- Distance Learning Rapid Review (findings for Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) )
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.57 |
18.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
42.30 |
39.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.24 |
37.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.75 |
6.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
53.51 |
53.19 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.39 |
5.35 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Low-ability readers ;
|
51.60 |
44.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers;
|
23.83 |
21.55 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
High-ability readers;
|
24.18 |
21.97 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers;
|
46.50 |
41.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers ;
|
36.49 |
31.62 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers;
|
20.34 |
18.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers;
|
17.06 |
14.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
20.09 |
18.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
High-ability readers;
|
43.83 |
38.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers ;
|
7.32 |
6.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers;
|
56.13 |
53.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers;
|
4.56 |
4.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Low-ability readers;
|
15.85 |
14.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Middle-ability readers;
|
19.85 |
19.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers;
|
47.45 |
46.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers ;
|
7.68 |
7.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers;
|
50.83 |
49.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
52.28 |
51.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers;
|
6.01 |
5.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers;
|
45.24 |
43.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers;
|
30.79 |
29.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
High-ability readers;
|
7.37 |
7.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Middle-ability readers;
|
40.06 |
39.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
32.57 |
32.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Middle-ability readers;
|
54.40 |
54.34 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
6.30 |
6.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Middle-ability readers;
|
32.04 |
33.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Middle-ability readers ;
|
6.74 |
6.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Low-ability readers;
|
3.71 |
4.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Low-ability readers ;
|
4.80 |
5.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers;
|
6.03 |
6.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Low-ability readers;
|
22.58 |
26.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
High-ability readers;
|
54.38 |
56.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
0 Days |
Low-ability readers;
|
5.19 |
5.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
High-ability readers;
|
52.09 |
55.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Middle-ability readers;
|
4.90 |
5.85 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
4.10 |
5.31 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Top-level structure |
Individualized Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (Individualized ITSS) vs. Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy |
1 Month |
High-ability readers;
|
3.85 |
6.25 |
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.
-
Suburban
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in grade 5 classrooms within two elementary schools in a western Pennsylvania suburban school district.
Study sample
Within the two study schools, 80.6% of students were white,11.4% were Black or African American, 1.6% were Asian American, and 6.4% were Native American, Hispanic, or students from other backgrounds; 9.8% of all students received free or reduced-price lunch, and 8.5% of the students were enrolled in part-time special education services. Characteristics of the students in the study sample were not provided.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition was an individualized version of Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS). ITSS is a supplemental web-based program for students in grades K-8. It is designed to develop literacy skills needed to understand factual texts encountered in classrooms and everyday life. The program teaches students how to follow the logical structure of factual text and to use text structure to improve understanding and recall. In particular, ITSS highlights five main text structures that are used to (1) make comparisons; (2) present problems and solutions; (3) link causes and effects; (4) present sequences; and (5) describe things, people, creatures, places, or events. The program helps students classify the structure of a passage by identifying certain key words, such as “solution” and “in contrast,” that clue readers in to the type of arguments the text is making. The individualized version of ITSS provided remediation or enrichment lessons matched to individual needs, based on the student's performance in the system. The intervention was provided for 6 months to students in the intervention group, for 3 times a week for 30 minutes each. The time spent using ITSS replaced regularly scheduled social studies instruction.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was the standard version of ITSS, which provided all students with the same, fixed sequence of lessons on structure strategy, regardless of their performance. As in the intervention condition, ITSS was provided for 6 months to students in the intervention group, for 3 times a week for 30 minutes each, and the time spent using ITSS replaced regularly scheduled social studies instruction.
Support for implementation
No support for implementation was noted.
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).