A Quasiexperimental Evaluation of Two Versions of First-Grade PALS: One with and One without Repeated Reading
Fuchs, Douglas; Cho, Eunsoo; Toste, Jessica R.; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Gilbert, Jennifer K.; McMaster, Kristen L.; Svenson, Ebba; Thompson, Anneke (2021). Exceptional Children, v87 n2 p141-162. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281711
-
examining491Students, grade1
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
PALS Only v. Comparison;
|
15.86 |
13.49 |
No |
-- |
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT): Spelling subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
PALS Only v. Comparison;
|
16.72 |
16.02 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Urban
-
Race Black 32% Other or unknown 21% White 47% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 45% No FRPL 55%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 33 grade 1 classrooms in eight schools in a large urban district.
Study sample
Across all three study conditions, the study sample included 54 percent male students, 47 percent White students, 32 percent Black students, and 21 percent of students were from other racial or ethnic groups. Moreover, 45 percent of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch, 7 percent had an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and 12 percent were English learners.
Intervention Group
Teachers conducted first grade peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) and PALS+Fluency programs three times per week in 35-minute sessions for 22 weeks. In PALS-only classes, stronger and weaker readers were paired. Stronger readers served as a coach first; the weaker reader served as the "reader" first -- and then the students switched roles. For the first 10 minutes of each session, pairs participated in four sounds-and-words activities that involved identifying sounds in isolation. hearing letter sounds in words, sounding out decodable words, and then reading stories. Partner read-aloud was conducted for 20 minutes, which included a three-minute read-aloud, 15-minute partner read-aloud, and a two-minute retell. Whereas the PALS Only group participated in the sounds-and-words activities for 20 minutes, the PALS+Fluency group had 15 minutes of sounds-and-words activities, which opened five minutes of fluency building (repeated reading). In the first 10 weeks, students played the “speed” game by reading lists of sight words. In weeks 11 through 22, they played the game by reading the connected text of short stories.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended a full-day workshop, where they received instruction in how to teach sounds-and-words activities and partner reading. Teachers also received instruction on how to pair students and form teams, when during the day to schedule PALS, and where to store related materials. Teachers received a PALS manual and met with the RA assigned to them.
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).