An Experimental Evaluation of Guided Reading and Explicit Interventions for Primary-Grade Students At-Risk for Reading Difficulties
Denton, Carolyn A.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Taylor, W. Pat; Barth, Amy E.; Vaughn, Sharon (2014). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v7 n3 p268-293. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1032919
-
examining162Students, grades1-2
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Publication (findings for Guided Reading)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification (LWI) subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Guided Reading vs. Comparison;
|
88.52 |
85.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III) Word Attack (WA) subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Guided Reading vs. Comparison;
|
92.12 |
90.37 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III) Word Attack (WA) subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
94.71 |
90.37 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification (LWI) subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
89.24 |
85.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Guided Reading vs. Comparison;
|
82.42 |
82.08 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
86.92 |
83.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
82.94 |
82.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Guided Reading vs. Comparison;
|
82.86 |
79.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI): Progress Monitoring for Beginning Readers (PMBR) |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Guided Reading vs. Comparison;
|
37.16 |
32.26 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
83.74 |
79.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI): Progress Monitoring for Beginning Readers (PMBR) |
Guided Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Explicit Instruction vs. Comparison;
|
40.02 |
32.26 |
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.
-
1% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
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 Black 64% Other or unknown 31% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 32% Not Hispanic or Latino 68% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 94% No FRPL 6%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in nine schools in two school districts in the southwestern United States.
Study sample
Across the three study conditions, the sample was comprised of 46 percent female students, 62 percent Black students, 6 percent White students, and 32 percent Hispanic students. Moreover, 92 percent of students were economically disadvantaged, 3 percent were limited English proficient, 10 percent were in special education, and 57 percent were in schools that were in urban locations.
Intervention Group
In the Explicit Instruction approach, teachers planned lessons based on clear objectives that progress purposefully from less challenging to more challenging skills and content. They provided direct explanations and modeling of concepts, skills, and strategies, along with extended opportunities for guided and independent practice with clear, corrective and positive feedback. Explicit instruction approaches emphasized synthetic phonics instruction (that is, teaching individual sound-spelling correspondences and encouraging children to “sound out” words). In the Guided Reading approach, students received small-group lessons, in which the primary activity was text reading and instruction and focused primarily on reading for meaning. Groups were composed of students who are able to read text on about the same level and use similar text-processing strategies, based on ongoing observations and assessments. Students were matched with leveled text of appropriate difficulty and progressed into increasingly challenging text.
Comparison Group
Students in the TSI group received typical school instruction.
Support for implementation
The intervention in both the guided reading and explicit instruction conditions was provided by 14 tutors hired by the researchers, six of whom tutored during both years of the study.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).