Reading Comprehension: Effects of Individualized, Integrated Language Arts as a Reading Approach with Struggling Readers [Individualized integrated approach vs. business as usual]
Thames, Dana G.; Reeves, Carolyn; Kazelskis, Richard; York, Kathleen; Boling, Charlotte; Newell, Kavatus; Wang, Ying (2008). Reading Psychology, v29 n1 p86-115. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ785594
-
examining61Students, grades4-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - below grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
49.41 |
36.71 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - above grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.83 |
2.97 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - on grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.15 |
8.32 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Narrative subtest - on grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
44.06 |
19.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Oral Narrative subtest - above grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
41.38 |
17.68 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Oral Narrative subtest - on grade level |
Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.48 |
37.26 |
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: 57%
Male: 43% -
- 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 Black 80% Other or unknown 9% White 11%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a single school in the southeastern region of the United States, though one student came from a nearby school.
Study sample
The authors provide characteristics of the 93 students they describe as remaining the study for the entire time. Among these 93 students, 57 percent were female and 43 percent were male. Eighty percent were Black, 11 percent were White, and 9 percent had unknown race. Students were mostly evenly distributed across grades 4 through 8, with 26 percent in grade 4, 29 percent in grade 5, 22 percent in grade 6, 11 percent in grade 7, and 13 percent in grade 8.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention consisted of 20 90-minute sessions, 10 of these took place in the Fall semester and the other 10 occurred in the Spring semester. Students receiving the intervention were paired with a preservice teacher. During the first two weeks of the Fall semester, preservice teachers examined their assigned students’ pre-test performance on Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) assessment, observed their assigned students in the classrooms, consulted with the students’ classroom teachers, and administered an informal interest inventory and the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna and Kear, 1990) to their assigned students. Using this information, they developed a written analysis of students’ strengths and weaknesses and a series of lessons focused on students' needs. A reading course instructor reviewed all lesson plans and provided feedback prior to implementation. During the subsequent 10 weeks, preservice teachers met once a week one-on-one with their assigned students to deliver the lesson plans. The rest of the week, students received the usual basal reading instruction delivered by their regular English language arts (ELA) teacher. At the end of the Fall semester, the preservice teachers documented their students’ reading progress and provided specific recommendations for continuing instruction. In the Spring semester, a new group of preservice teachers used these assessments to plan instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received basal reading instruction during the 90-minute reading block. Basal reading focused on vocabulary acquisition, word recognition, and comprehension.
Support for implementation
Preservice teachers delivering the intervention completed three courses in literacy instruction and were enrolled in the fourth course, which focused on reading assessment and instruction, by Fall semester. Lesson plans for each assigned student developed by preservice teachers were reviewed by their instructor, who provided feedback.
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).