Examining the Impact of Quickreads' Technology and Print Formats on Fluency, Comprehension, and Vocabulary Development for Elementary Students
Trainin, Guy; Hayden, H. Emily; Wilson, Kathleen; Erickson, Joan (2016). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v9 suppl 1 p93-116. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1115349
-
examining377Students, grades2-3
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Publication (findings for Quick Reads)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Quick Reads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Print + Technology vs. Comparison: Grade 2 and 3 Only;
|
32.47 |
31.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
Quick Reads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Print + Technology vs. Comparison: Grade 2 and 3 Only;
|
32.33 |
31.89 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Quick Reads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Print Only vs. Comparison: Grade 2 and 3 Only;
|
32.82 |
31.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
Quick Reads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Print Only vs. Comparison: Grade 2 and 3 Only;
|
32.46 |
31.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Quick Reads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Print Only vs. Comparison: Grade 2 and 3 Only;
|
98.08 |
96.33 |
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.
-
11% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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 2% Black 8% Native American 2% Other or unknown 21% White 67% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 52% No FRPL 48%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 76 classrooms in nine elementary schools in a Midwestern city.
Study sample
Across grades 2-5, the study included 67.1 percent White non-Hispanic students, 7.9 percent Black students, 2.1 percent Asian students, 1.8 percent Native American students, and race was note reported for 21.1 percent of students. Moreover, 15.2 percent of students were Hispanic, 48.9 percent were male, 11 percent were English learners, 16 percent were in special education, and 52 percent received free or reduced price lunch. Sample characteristics were not available for the sample of interest in this review, which focused on grades 2-3.
Intervention Group
QuickReads utilizes 15-minute instructional sessions that follow the gradual release of responsibility framework through a sequence of three readings per passage. First, a teacher read-aloud models appropriate prosody, rate, and expression, and scaffolds comprehension with text preview, vocabulary definition, and conceptual support. Next, guided practice is provided as students read the passage silently while listening to it read aloud again in a phrased, expressive manner. Finally, students read the text independently under timed conditions. Over time this instructional sequence supports students to take on responsibility for utilizing text comprehension supports, familiarizing themselves with the text, and determining meanings of vocabulary, thus enabling them to read at a more brisk pace and comprehend more fully. Teachers in both the experimental groups (Print Only and Technology + Print) were asked to use the QuickReads instructional sequence three times a week in 15-minute sessions during each week of the nineteen-week study. Each passage was read a minimum of three times. Prior to the first read students were asked to think about the topic and scan the passage for any new or challenging words. For the print-only group these words were defined by the teacher; for the Technology+Print condition the students clicked on individual words in the passage to hear the definition with an example of the word in context. Both groups then completed the graphic organizer associated with the passage. For the second read students listened as the passage was read in a phrased, expressive manner by the teacher, or a CD recording that came with the print program, or by the computer. The third read was a timed, individual one minute student reading. The student either marked progress in words read correctly per minute (WCPM) on a graph in the student book (print-only condition) or viewed progress on a graph on the computer (Technology+Print condition). Finally, the student completed a set of comprehension questions. The print-only format of QuickReads uses student books with graphic organizers and written comprehension questions. The Technology+Print format includes these materials and also supports a few more components associated with comprehension, described below. The program is accessible on any desktop computer (Mac or PC) with a headset included. The technology tracks student reading patterns and uses voice recognition software to measure rates and accuracy. Text is highlighted in phrases and miscues are also highlighted. After reading, the software conducts the comprehension check and provides feedback on performance in the form of stars.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group provided standard district fluency instruction. Comparison group teachers reported spending less time on fluency instruction per week than the prescribed amount of time for the intervention groups of 45 minutes per week. The most frequently reported activities in the control group were paired reading, individual practice, read-aloud, listening to models of fluent reading, timed readings, silent first read followed by individual read-aloud, and choral reading.
Support for implementation
Teachers administering the Print Only condition received a one-hour training at their school in November of the study year. Substitute teachers were provided by the research grant for Technology + Print condition teachers to attend a three-hour training at district offices.
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).