The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study Final Report: The Impact of Supplemental Literacy Courses for Struggling Ninth-Grade Readers. NCEE 2010-4021 [Reading Apprentice Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. business as usual]
Somers, Marie-Andree; Corrin, William; Sepanik, Susan; Salinger, Terry; Levin, Jesse; Zmach, Courtney (2010). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511811
-
examining2,255Students, grade9
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized State Test Score |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: RAAL schools;
|
0.13 |
-0.04 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: RAAL schools;
|
90.04 |
88.89 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: RAAL schools;
|
93.44 |
93.33 |
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% -
Race Black 47% Other or unknown 37% White 17% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in 17 high schools across 10 school districts in the United States. The intervention was implemented in full-year supplementary classes of 12-15 grade 9 students. Each class was taught by a teacher trained to implement the intervention.
Study sample
Thirty percent of the sample was Hispanic, 47 percent were Black and non-Hispanic, 17 percent were White and non-Hispanic, and the remaining 7 percent were of other races and ethnicities. The study sample included approximately equal numbers of male and female students. Approximately 67 percent were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. 46 percent reported a language other than English spoken at home. Thirty percent were considered overage for their grade.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Intervention students participated in the supplementary literacy classes that took place either as a 45-minute daily class or a 75-90 minute class on alternating days. Classes were designed to meet at a minimum of 225 minutes per week. In the first cohort, implementation was delayed and the classes went on for 7.7 months on average. In the second cohort, students participated in the Enhanced Reading Opportunities (ERO) classes for an average of 9.1 months. The lessons followed the Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) program that provides a detailed curriculum while giving teachers flexibility in how to include various aspects of the RAAL curriculum in their day-to-day teaching activities to work towards the overarching goals of the program.
Comparison Group
Comparison students took the same core courses as intervention students. Instead of intervention classes, comparison students were enrolled in elective courses. Most took elective courses that were not focused on literacy.
Support for implementation
The study provided training to the teachers who were implementing the RAAL program as well as to district program coordinators so that they could also provide support for implementation. Teachers attended teacher training institutes, as well as RAAL-specific "booster sessions." The program developers also conducted instructional coaching visits to the teachers' classrooms.
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).