The Relative Effects of Group Size on Reading Progress of Older Students with Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word study, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (large group) vs. business as usual]
Vaughn, Sharon; Wanzek, Jeanne; Wexler, Jade; Barth, Amy; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack; Romain, Melissa; Denton, Carolyn A.; Roberts, Greg; Francis, David (2010). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v23 n8 p931-956. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ893981
-
examining421Students, grades7-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb reading maze |
Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.37 |
25.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency (TOSRE) |
Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.10 |
86.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.11 |
86.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.19 |
92.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention 2 (Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.18 |
91.50 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
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 Asian 3% Black 40% Native American 0% Other or unknown 43% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 57%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted amongst seventh- and eighth-grade students from six middle schools in two large, urban cities in the southwestern United States. Approximately half of the sample was recruited from each of the two urban sites. The two schools of the first site were classified as urban; the remaining four schools were classified as suburban and rural.
Study sample
Of the 486 students included in the analytic sample, 43 percent were female, and 74 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The sample included 193 African American students (40 percent), 211 Hispanic students (43 percent), 67 White students (14 percent), 13 Asian students (3 percent), and 2 American Indian students (0.41 percent). Among the 15 teachers hired and trained by the researchers to deliver the interventions, they had an average of 6.3 years of teaching experience. Each was a certified teacher with an undergraduate degree. Ten teachers had a master’s degree in education, and 12 teachers had a teaching certification in a reading-related field.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This review compares the researcher-designed large group intervention with the comparison (business as usual) group. Students in the large-group intervention group were provided a multi-component instructional intervention that addressed multisyllable word reading, academic vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and comprehension. The experimental group met for 45 to 50 minutes each day over the course of a full school year (from September through May). The intervention was composed of three phases of instruction, each of which prioritized an element of instruction and also incorporated the skills and knowledge covered in previous phases. Phase 1 focused on word study and fluency, as well as vocabulary and comprehension. The fluency work involved pairing higher- and lower-performing readers for reading fluency practice, and the teacher provided feedback to each pair. For the word study component, teachers provided advanced word study strategies for decoding multisyllabic words. The vocabulary component involved instruction on unfamiliar vocabulary words and a review of previously taught words. Lastly, the comprehension component involved discussion of passages in the word study component. Phase 2 focused on vocabulary and comprehension and included additional instruction and practice in word study and fluency skills and strategies. For the word study and vocabulary components, students reviewed skills and strategies learned in Phase 1 by applying them to new vocabulary words and texts. For the fluency and comprehension components, students worked with expository and narrative texts and worked on fluency as well as generating questions, identifying the main idea, summarizing, and answering questions. Phase 3 continued the focus on vocabulary and comprehension and emphasized independent student application of skills and strategies. The word study and vocabulary components were the same as in Phase 2 but with new activities and units developed by the research team. And similar to Phase 2, the fluency and comprehension components involved review and practice of previously learned skills and strategies using new expository and narrative texts.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was “business as usual.” Students participated in their regular English language arts or reading classes.
Support for implementation
The researchers provided intervention teachers with approximately 60 hours of professional development prior to teaching, as well as an additional nine hours of professional development related to the intervention throughout the year. Professional development hours included training on methods specific to the intervention, features of effective instruction, behavior management, and general information about adolescent struggling readers. Also, teachers received ongoing feedback and coaching, and there were biweekly staff development meetings.
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).