Web-Based Tutoring of the Structure Strategy with or without Elaborated Feedback or Choice for Fifth- and Seventh-Grade Readers
Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Wijekumar, Kay; Middlemiss, Wendy; Higley, Kelli; Lei, Pui-Wa; Meier, Catherine; Spielvogel, James (2010). Reading Research Quarterly, v45 n1 p62-92. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871741
-
examining58Students, grades5-7
Distance Learning Rapid Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2020
- Distance Learning Rapid Review (findings for Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy)
- 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 (GSRT) |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
44.31 |
42.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
21.02 |
20.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
4.10 |
4.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
51.45 |
51.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
35.89 |
42.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
3.93 |
4.52 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Below grade-level readers;
|
3.69 |
3.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
18.17 |
16.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Below grade-level readers;
|
3.99 |
3.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
37.88 |
36.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
48.08 |
46.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
3.97 |
3.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
47.90 |
46.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Below grade-level readers;
|
48.62 |
46.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
3.82 |
3.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Aggregated sample;
|
4.26 |
4.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
4.27 |
4.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Aggregated sample;
|
50.45 |
51.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
53.56 |
55.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Higher-ability readers;
|
4.40 |
4.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Higher-ability readers;
|
51.64 |
54.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Below grade-level readers;
|
27.75 |
31.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Aggregated sample;
|
3.81 |
4.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Higher-ability readers;
|
22.03 |
23.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Aggregated sample;
|
20.59 |
22.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
22.32 |
23.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Higher-ability readers;
|
34.09 |
43.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
39.61 |
49.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Aggregated sample;
|
28.69 |
37.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Signaling Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Below grade-level readers;
|
17.52 |
20.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Text: Total Recall Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Below grade-level readers;
|
17.55 |
29.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
0 Days |
Higher-ability readers;
|
4.00 |
5.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comparison Test: Competence Test |
Enhanced feedback and choice of passage in Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy vs. Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) |
4 Months |
Higher-ability readers;
|
3.73 |
4.71 |
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.
-
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 8% Other or unknown 7% White 83% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Not Hispanic or Latino 97%
Study Details
Setting
The study includes grade 5 and grade 7 students in a school district in western Pennsylvania. The authors classify the district as in the urban fringe of a large city. Grade 7 students were enrolled in the district's sole middle school and grade 5 students were enrolled in one of the district's two elementary schools.
Study sample
Across all four groups, grade 5 students in the analytic sample were 85 percent white, 11 percent Black, 2 percent Asian, and 2 percent Hispanic. Five percent of the fifth-grade students were special education students and 10 percent received reduced-price lunch. Grade 7 students were 81 percent white, 4 percent Black, 2 percent Asian, 4 percent Hispanic, and 9 percent of another race or ethnicity. Two percent of the grade 7 students were special education students and 2 percent received reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy (ITSS) is a supplemental web-based program for students in grades K-8. It is intended to develop literacy skills needed to understand factual texts encountered in classrooms and everyday life. The program teaches students how to follow the logical structure of factual text and to use text structure to improve understanding and recall. In particular, ITSS highlights five main text structures that are used to (1) make comparisons; (2) present problems and solutions; (3) link causes and effects; (4) present sequences; and (5) describe things, people, creatures, places, or events. The program helps students classify the structure of a passage by identifying certain key words, such as “solution” and “in contrast,” that clue readers in to the type of arguments the text is making. All students in both the intervention and comparison groups used ITSS several times per week for a total of 90 minutes per week. Grade 5 students used ITSS during their social studies time and grade 7 students used ITSS during a stand-alone elective period. ITSS was used individually with little teacher input. The intervention consisted of a modification to ITSS. Students were provided with a choice of texts to read at the beginning of each set of lessons and reminders that they chose the texts, plus elaborated feedback provided through pop-up windows within ITSS. Elaborated feedback modeled correct responses for students.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition used ITSS for the same amount of time and under the same conditions as students in the intervention group. However, students in the comparison condition did not receive a choice of texts to read for each lesson; instead, students were assigned the same texts that students in the intervention condition chose. Students in the comparison condition also received only simple feedback within ITSS on their work, such as "good job" or "try again" based on their performance.
Support for implementation
Teachers received two, one-hour training sessions during which they received log-in credentials, interacted with ITSS with researcher assistance, and were instructed on addressing technology issues. At the start of the intervention, students were introduced to ITSS and received log-in credentials and headphones. In addition, some adaptations were made to ITSS to facilitate implementation. During early lessons, grade 7 students objected to (1) strict requirements for responses related to a passage's main idea to be considered correct and (2) ITSS indicating an incorrect response on the third unsuccessful attempt to answer a question. In response, later lessons were changed to (1) have less restrictive requirements for a correct response about a passage's main idea and (2) respond with a "thank you," instead of "incorrect" message in response to a third unsuccessful attempt to answer a question.
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).