English Language and Literacy Acquisition-Validation (ELLA-V) i3 Evaluation (Valid 22). Final Report
Wolf, Rebecca; Latham, Gavin; Armstrong, Clayton; Ross, Steven; Laurenzano, Mary; Daniels, Cecilia; Eisinger, Jane; Reilly, Joseph (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED598313
-
examining1,317Students, gradesK-3
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with a risk of bias from individuals who entered clusters after random assignment, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA-2) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
7.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA-2) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
7.59 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey oral (WMLS-R Oral) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
66.99 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey oral (WMLS-R Oral) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
66.99 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 3;
|
1385.84 |
1369.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey Reading (WMLS-R Reading) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 3;
|
99.00 |
99.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey Reading (WMLS-R Reading) |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 3;
|
N/A |
99.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 3;
|
N/A |
1369.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): science subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 3;
|
N/A |
185.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): science subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 3;
|
N/A |
185.94 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 2;
|
90.16 |
87.73 |
No |
-- | |
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 1;
|
N/A |
46.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SEI Spanish |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 1;
|
N/A |
1.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
SEI Spanish |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 1;
|
N/A |
1.54 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TELPAS Writing |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 2, Grade 3;
|
N/A |
2.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
TELPAS Writing |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Treatment 1, Grade 3 ;
|
N/A |
2.78 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Texas
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 78 schools in 10 districts in Texas across urban (10%), suburban (50%), small town (10%), and rural (30%) sites. Study schools in the study sample served a predominantly low-income (91%) and English learner (EL) student population (62%).
Study sample
The sample was 100% EL students. The majority of students in the study were in transitional bilingual classrooms and the teachers were all English as a second language (ESL) teachers. Only EL students and students who did not qualify for special education services were recruited for the study. No student-level demographic information was provided in the study.
Intervention Group
English Language and Literacy Acquisition-Validation (ELLA-V) provided ongoing virtual professional development and coaching and curricula to teachers of English learner (EL) students in 10 school districts at 78 schools in Texas. The evaluation included two treatment groups that provided similar professional development and coaching but different curricula for teachers. Treatment 1 included science-infused literacy curriculum, while Treatment 2 included science-infused oral language curriculum. The evaluation examined the effectiveness of ELLA-V in promoting K-3 students’ overall academic growth in science, oral language, phonological awareness, reading, writing, and English language acquisition; student self-esteem; and teachers’ quality of instruction after one year of exposure in each of four grades.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition had access to the standard professional development, coaching, and curricular resources provided by the school and district. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included professional development, coaching, and curricula.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2020
- Grant Competition (findings for The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized control trial with cluster level inferences and joiners, but it demonstrates baseline equivalence.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA): Phonological Awareness subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: GradesK&1;
|
0.09 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Munoz Language Survey-Revised (WMLS-R): Oral Language Subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades K-3;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS): English Language Development |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades K-3;
|
-0.02 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS): Reading Subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades K-3;
|
-0.03 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS): Writing Subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades K-3;
|
-0.04 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Munoz Language Survey-Revised (WMLS-R): Reading Subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades K-3;
|
-0.02 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Reading Subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample: Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): science subtest |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample: Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
The English Language and Literacy Acquisition–Validation Program (ELLA-V) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: Grades 1&2;
|
-0.01 |
0.00 |
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.
-
62% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Texas
Study Details
Setting
The study sample included 79 schools in 10 districts in Texas across urban, suburban, small town, and rural sites. English learner students in both structured English immersion and transitional bilingual programs received the intervention during a 75-minute ESL block in kindergarten and 90-minute ESL block in grades 1–3, while the typical state-mandated ESL block was 45 minutes. Comparison students received instruction in a business-as-usual format (i.e., non-enhanced 45-minute ESL learning block). In each school, there were at least two teachers who were certified in bilingual education. Students in grades K–3 were English learners and did not qualify for special education services.
Study sample
No student demographic information was reported. However, for the ten schools, 62% of the student population were English learners, 91% were low income, and 76% had an English language proficiency rating of intermediate or advanced. The majority of students in the study were in transitional bilingual classrooms. Students were recruited only if they were English learners and did not qualify for special education services.
Intervention Group
ELLA-V provided ongoing virtual professional development and coaching and curricula to teachers of English learner students. ELLA-V was implemented in grade 3 in 2013–14, grade 2 in 2014–15, grade 1 in 2015–16, and kindergarten in 2016–17. Teachers received the intervention for a single year, dependent on grade-level implementation. The curricula used by the teachers differed across grade levels, but all focused on literacy and science content. For Treatment 1, which is the focus of this review, reading was a focus across the grade, compared to Treatment 2's focus on oral language development. Across grades, the curricula for Treatment 1 included Lets Talk Science (LTS), Early Interventions in Reading (EIR-I and EIR-II), and Content Reading Integrating Science for English Language and Literacy Acquisition (CRISELLA). Students in both structured English immersion and transitional bilingual programs received the intervention during a 75-minute ESL block in kindergarten and a 90-minute ESL block in grades 1–3, while the typical state-mandated ESL block was 45 minutes (p.8).
Comparison Group
The comparison condition consisted of teachers of English learner students in each of the four grade levels who may have received professional development, coaching, and used curriculum materials other than those available through ELLA-V (i.e., non-enhanced 45-minute ESL learning block).
Support for implementation
Each school year, intervention teachers in the target grade level received bimonthly 90-minute virtual professional training for 18 sessions between September and May. Intervention teachers were also supported by coaches and observed up to three times a year depending on teacher needs. Coaches provided feedback to teachers specific to teaching English learners. Finally, teachers were provided with curricula that reflected pedagogical best practices and were aligned with content-area standards and the instructional models used in the teacher professional development.
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).