Main Idea Identification with Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities and Specific Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Explicit and Basal Instructional Approaches [Reading intervention (Miller et al. (2011)) vs. business as usual]
Miller, C. Alan; Darch, Craig B.; Flores, Margaret M.; Shippen, Margaret E.; Hinton, Vanessa (2011). Journal of Direct Instruction, v11 p15-29. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ943049
-
examining38Students, grades3-7
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Miller et al. (2011)))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Curriculum-based assessment-maintenance measure (Miller et al., 2011) |
Reading intervention (Miller et al. (2011)) vs. Other intervention |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
71.67 |
62.86 |
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: 26%
Male: 74% -
Rural
-
- 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 76% White 24%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in a middle school and elementary school in a rural area of the southeastern United States. All students received instruction in special education classes as a supplement to language arts in general education classrooms. The intervention was implemented in a small-group resource room setting.
Study sample
The students in the sample either had mild intellectual disabilities (MID) or specific learning disabilities (SLD). The students in the sample were in grades three through seven. Seventy-six percent were African American and the remainder were White. Seventy-four percent of students in the sample were male.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The students' special education teachers implemented the intervention (explicit strategy instruction) in a small group resource room setting over the course of 3 weeks. Each week, the sessions took place 4 days per week for approximately 45 minutes per session. After reviewing the previous lesson, teachers taught intervention group students to identify the main ideas of paragraphs and passages by applying rule-based statements and multi-step procedures to texts from the McGraw-Hill Reading series. For example, one rule used was, “When attempting to identify the main idea of a paragraph, pay close attention to the topic sentence (i.e., the first sentence) and the concluding sentence (i.e., the last sentence) of the paragraph.” Then, teachers demonstrated and led students in the implementation of this rule or strategy before allowing them to practice the strategy independently, with teacher feedback. Students also participated in whole group language arts instruction in general education classrooms.
Comparison Group
The students' special education teachers implemented the comparison condition (the basal program) in a small-group resource room setting over the course of 3 weeks. Each week, the sessions took place 4 days per week for approximately 45 minutes per session. Using the same McGraw-Hill Reading series used in the intervention group, teachers used strategies such as connecting to participants’ prior knowledge of the story’s content. Next, teachers asked students to read the text either taking turns or silently. Then, teachers engaged in an activity to assess whether students understood the main idea of the passage. Students also participated in whole-group language arts instruction in general education classrooms.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the study taught both the intervention and comparison conditions. Before the study began, these teachers participated in two 4-hour training sessions. One session focused on the intervention condition and the other session focused on the comparison condition. Each teacher practiced implementing both conditions and the researcher provided coaching and feedback on their demonstrations.
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).