The Effects of Combining Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies and Incremental Rehearsal on Non-Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners' Reading Achievement
Leinen, Amy Bethel (2017). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575375
-
examining36Students, gradesK-3
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
FastBridge Letter Sounds |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
54.83 |
37.17 |
Yes |
|
|
FastBridge Nonsense Words (NSW) |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.33 |
11.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
FastBridge Decodable Words (CVC) |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.68 |
21.36 |
No |
-- |
|
FastBridge Sight Words |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.33 |
54.42 |
No |
-- |
|
Fastbridge CBM Reading Fluency |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.61 |
55.67 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 33%
Male: 67% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Asian 91% Black 9% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted at two elementary schools -- one public and one charter -- in a large district in a Midwestern city. Participants were K-3 non-Spanish speaking EL students.
Study sample
There are 36 students in the analytic sample across grades K-3. Eighty-one percent of students in the sample attended a charter school, 67 percent were male, 3 percent were in special education programs, 100 percent received free or reduced-price lunch, 100 percent were English learners. Forty-two percent of students' home language was Karen, 39 percent were Hmong, 3 percent were Chinese, and 9 percent were Somali. Moreover, 22 percent of students were in kindergarten, 22 percent were in grade 1, 33 percent were in grade 2, and 22 percent were in grade 3.
Intervention Group
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) plus Incremental Rehearsal (IR) is a phonics-based intervention designed to improve the reading outcomes of non-Spanish-speaking English learners. The intervention was provided five times a week for approximately 30 minutes per session, for six to eight weeks, totaling 27-36 lessons. At the charter school, one teacher worked with four to six students. The general education teacher delivered instruction in their classroom in a designated small-group intervention space. At the public school, students rotated between two different undergraduate university tutors for the first five weeks of instruction and worked with the author for the last three weeks of the intervention after the university students’ paid job-study was over. Instruction was provided in the school conference room or in the parent resource room in groups of five students. In the first seven lessons, students learned about PALS activities and procedures. After the seventh lesson, the interventionist began each session with 3-5 minutes of direct scripted instruction, then students paired off to work on individualized PALS decoding materials while the interventionist provided one-on-one IR instruction. Students rotated between being the "coach" and the "reader" during PALS and received IR during this time as well.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
All interventionists were trained to implement modified PALS + IR with follow-up observation and training as needed. Training was provided to all interventionists in pairs or individually in up to five one- to three-hour sessions. The training included four major components: (a) background information, (b) learning PALS/PALS decoding, (c) learning IR, and (d) logistics. A separate check-out was done with each interventionist to ensure they could perform both the PALS and IR components independently. Using the fidelity checklist, the interventionists demonstrated their knowledge with no less than 90% fidelity before implementing the intervention. On-going training and support was provided to the teachers and tutors as needed. Weekly check-ins were also provided to problem-solve any issues and answer all questions. All groups were observed a minimum of two times with additional support provided based on each observation.
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).