Efficacy of Learning Strategies Instruction in Adult Education [Prediction Strategy]
Hock, Michael F.; Mellard, Daryl F. (2011). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v4 n2 p134-153. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920174
-
examining71Students
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2021
- Publication (findings for Adult Education)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high 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 |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
81.60 |
79.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
5.20 |
4.10 |
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.
-
Female: 63%
Male: 37% -
- 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
Kansas
-
Race Black 45% Other or unknown 22% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 5% Not Hispanic or Latino 95%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three adult education programs operated by community colleges in the Midwest. These programs included 29 reading classes.
Study sample
The initial sample consisted of 143 learners. There were 375 learners across all four studies. These learners were at least 16 years old, had withdrawn from secondary education without earning a credential or without attaining 8th grade equivalency in reading, writing, or math skills; and were U.S. citizens or authorized to work in the United States. Across the four studies, 63 percent of learners were female, and 33 percent were White. On average, learners had completed a level of education between 9th and 10th grade.
Intervention Group
The program taught learners to use the “CLUE” mnemonic: C – check for clues; L – link to prior knowledge; U – unveil predictions, and E – examine the reading. Before reading a passage, a learner “checks for clues” by visually scanning the reading materials. The next step involves the learners thinking about what the clues tell them and linking them to what they already know. In the third step, the learner makes and unveils a prediction about the passage’s main topic. In general, classes were planned for eight weeks, four days per week, and 50–60 minutes per day.
Comparison Group
Comparison group instructors continued using their existing teaching practices. They delivered materials to prepare learners for the high school equivalency exam using whole group instruction, small groups, and individual tutoring. Comparison classes were also planned for eight weeks, four days per week, and 50–60 minutes per day.
Support for implementation
Research staff trained instructors in the treatment condition before the study began and gave them reading materials for adult learners. To monitor implementation, researchers collected instructors’ records of attendance and minutes of instruction and made audio- and video-recordings of all class. The authors indicated that the differences between treatment and comparison groups in the number of minutes of instruction or learner attendance rates were not large enough to be distinguished from statistical noise. They also indicated that the treatment instructors taught the “CLUE” mnemonic strategy and that the comparison instructors did not.
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).