Time to Transfer: Long-Term Effects of a Sustained and Spiraled Content Literacy Intervention in the Elementary Grades. (EdWorkingPaper: 23-769)
Kim, J. S., Gilbert, J. B., Relyea, J. E., Rich, P., Scherer, E., Burkhauser, M. A., & Tvedt, J. N. (2023). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/t3c6-xh48.
-
examining2,001Students, grades1-4
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2024
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Reading Assessment |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
433.15 |
434.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Reading Assessment |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Other intervention |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
540.62 |
541.23 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
540.96 |
541.87 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Other intervention |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
545.55 |
545.58 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science Vocabulary Knowledge (Kim et al 2023) Grade 3 Untaught Words |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.18 |
21.18 |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
23% English language learners -
Male: 50%
Other or unknown: 50% -
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
North Carolina
-
Race Asian 8% Black 38% Other or unknown 36% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 32% Other or unknown 68% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in first- through fourth-grade classrooms from 30 elementary schools in an urban school district in the Southeastern United States.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 2,001 students (1,130 intervention, 871 comparison) in first through fourth grade. The racial composition was 38 percent Black, 18 percent White, and 8 percent Asian. About one-third (32%) identified their ethnicity as Hispanic. Half (50%) of the sample was male. Approximately 41 percent resided in neighborhoods characterized as low socioeconomic status. About one-fourth (23%) were Limited English Proficient, and 10 percent had an Individual Education Plan.
Intervention Group
The Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) intervention is a sustained and spiraled content literacy intervention aimed at students in first through third grade to support the development of science knowledge and vocabulary. Topics are introduced in a simple form and become more complex gradually over time through revisiting them iteratively. For example, first-grade students are introduced to the topic of how animals survive in their habitat. In second grade, they study the more complex topic of studying fossils of non-living animals. Third graders study the most complex topic in this curriculum - how living systems function properly. The intervention consisted of 30 hours of teacher-directed lessons over the span of 3 years. Due to the pandemic, the intervention was modified to be delivered online and in a hybrid fashion.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual literacy instruction plus the MORE intervention for 1 year in grade 3, both in-person and hybrid.
Support for implementation
Teachers participated in 3 hours of professional development and a 1-hour grade-level team meeting. Coaches were provided each year of the intervention to support intervention implementation.
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).