Literacy Learning Cohorts: Content-Focused Approach to Improving Special Education Teachers' Reading Instruction
Brownell, Mary; Kiely, Mary Theresa; Haager, Diane; Boardman, Alison; Corbett, Nancy; Algina, James; Dingle, Mary Patricia; Urbach, Jennifer (2017). Exceptional Children, v83 n2 p143-164. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1125284
-
examining170Students, grades3-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high cluster-level attrition, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) vs. Training on phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency instruction--Brownell et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
495.37 |
491.88 |
No |
-- |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) - Nonsense Word Fluency, words read correctly (NWFWRC) |
Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) vs. Training on phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency instruction--Brownell et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.98 |
26.04 |
No |
-- |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) - Nonsense Word Fluency, correct letter-sound correspondences (NWFCLS) |
Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) vs. Training on phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency instruction--Brownell et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.05 |
91.68 |
No |
-- |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest |
Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) vs. Training on phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency instruction--Brownell et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
469.17 |
467.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) |
Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) vs. Training on phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency instruction--Brownell et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.07 |
86.05 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
California, Colorado, Florida
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted during small-group reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in 29 elementary schools across four school districts in Florida, Colorado, and California.
Study sample
The study included 42 special education teachers who taught reading to third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students with learning disabilities in small groups at least 4 days per week. The researchers randomly assigned schools to the intervention and comparison condition but did not report how many schools were assigned to each condition. Each teacher selected one of their reading groups to participate, which resulted in 170 students overall; 94 students were taught by intervention group teachers, and 76 students were taught by comparison teachers. More than half of the students in the sample were male and received free or reduced-price lunch, and fewer than half of the students were White. Forty of the forty-two teachers who participated in the study were female and White. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 41 years, and 95 percent were certified in special education.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the intervention group participated in Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC), a professional development program designed to improve special education teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices for teaching reading to upper elementary students with learning disabilities. The program focused on improving instruction in word study and reading fluency. Teachers first attended a two-day professional development institute that introduced instructional strategies related to phonology, decoding, structural analysis, and fluency. Following the institute, teachers participated in six monthly cohort meetings in small groups led by instructional coaches. These meetings supported teachers in applying the strategies they learned and in reviewing student progress data. Teachers also received individualized coaching. Coaches observed teachers’ reading instruction four times during the school year and provided feedback using video recordings of classroom instruction. During these sessions, teachers reviewed the recordings with their coaches and discussed ways to improve instruction. Teachers participating in LLC received a resource manual about word identification, which included instructional activities and word lists as well as a scope and sequence for word study and fluency. They also received a book aligned with the professional development institute.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group attended the same two-day professional development institute as the intervention teachers but did not participate in the follow-up cohort meetings or coaching sessions or receive the resource manual or book. After the initial training, these teachers did not participate in the follow-up cohort meetings or coaching that were part of LLC.
Support for implementation
Instructional coaches supported teachers in the intervention group throughout the school year. Coaches had advanced training in reading or special education and experience working with struggling readers.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).