Individualizing a Web-Based Structure Strategy Intervention for Fifth Graders' Comprehension of Nonfiction [Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Individualized) vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Standard)]
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
-
examining43Students, grade5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Individualized))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Individualized) vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Standard) |
0 Days |
Full sample (Low Reading Ability subgroup);
|
36.49 |
31.62 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Total Recall - Comparison Text (Meyer et al., 2011) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Individualized) vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) (Standard) |
1 Month |
Full sample (Low Reading Ability subgroup);
|
23.55 |
26.30 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
-
Race Asian 2% Black 11% Other or unknown 6% White 81%
Study Details
Setting
The study was based in two elementary schools in suburban western Pennsylvania. The intervention was held during the 5th-grade students' regularly scheduled social studies class in which students used computers at mobile docking stations during the intervention.
Study sample
Equal numbers of students in the low-ability reading group were male and female. Approximately 17% of the students in this group were enrolled in special education. Study authors also report student demographics at the school level across the two schools in the study: 80.6% of students were White, 11.4% were 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 state aid in the form of free or reduced-rate lunch; and 8.5% of the students were enrolled in part-time special education services.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students worked individually on the computer 3 times per week for 30 minutes a session from September to April in the same school year to complete a more individualized version of the Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy (ITSS) lessons. This equated to roughly 35 sessions. ITSS replaced 90 minutes per week of regularly scheduled social studies for all students in both schools. The individualized intervention adapts instruction to the reading needs of the student. Unlike in the comparison condition, where students completed the lessons in a standard, fixed order, students in the intervention condition received remedial lessons after poor performance on a lesson and enrichment lessons after a good performance on a lesson, for a more individualized approach. Remediation and enrichment consisted of reading a parallel text with increased/decreased readability.
Comparison Group
Students worked individually on the computer 3 times per week for 30 minutes a session to complete the standard ITSS lessons. This equated to roughly 35 sessions. ITSS replaced 90 minutes a week of regularly scheduled social studies for all students in both schools. Lessons were presented in a fixed order. This condition did not adapt instruction to the individual reading needs of the student. It instead delivered standard instruction to all students at the same level by following a standard sequence of lessons.
Support for implementation
No support for implementation is reported.
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).