Improving Reading Comprehension, Science Domain Knowledge, and Reading Engagement through a First-Grade Content Literacy Intervention
Kim, James S.; Burkhauser, Mary A.; Mesite, Laura M.; Asher, Catherine A.; Relyea, Jackie Eunjung; Fitzgerald, Jill; Elmore, Jeff (2021). Journal of Educational Psychology, v113 n1 p3-26. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281030
-
examining623Students, grade1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Grant Competition (findings for Model of Reading Engagement (MORE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) Primary Grade Reading |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
mCLASS Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Composite Score |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Me and My Reading Profile |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science Vocabulary Knowledge Depth (Kim et al 2021) Untaught words |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science Argumentative Writing |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
21% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Race Asian 9% Black 33% Other or unknown 37% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was set in first grade classrooms located in 10 public K-5 elementary schools. Each school was located in a different geographic region, or learning community, of the state.
Study sample
About one-third (33%) of students were African American, 21 percent were White, 9 percent were Asian, and the remaining 37 percent had an unknown race. Additionally, one-third of the students identified as Hispanic. There were slightly more females (51%) than males (49%). Twenty-one percent were English language learners, and seven percent were receiving special education services.
Intervention Group
The Model of Reading Engagement intervention (MORE) is a content literacy intervention, designed to increase first-grade students' science knowledge and reading engagement. MORE lessons focused on the life science topic of Arctic animal survival. The unit was 10 lessons long, conducted over a 3-week period, and each lesson was designed to take about 60 minutes. Teachers integrated five practices: conceptually related science texts, concept mapping, argumentative writing, read-alouds and discussion, and collaborative research. Students in the MS-H component chose three books to read and were assigned a homework activity.
Comparison Group
Teachers assigned to the comparison group taught their normal literacy program, which was based on a balanced literacy program including word study, guided reading, and writing activities in small group, teacher-directed instruction, and independent reading.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in a 2-hour professional development workshop where they learned about the theory of the program and reviewed the lesson materials. Teachers received ongoing support from their school literacy facilitators during the implementation period. Each school literacy facilitator was provided with two 30-minute planning calls to prepare them to support teachers as program implementation began and prior to the administration of student assessments. Research team members visited each school at least once during the 3-week implementation period to distribute instructional materials, support the data collection process, discuss teachers’ questions and concerns, and address challenges.
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).