Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P., ... Schatschneider, C. (2011). Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221.
Reviewed: December 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
480.47 |
483.26 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 51% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 36% |
| Hispanic | 3% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 97% |
The study took place in seven schools in the southeastern United States. These schools were located in suburban, urban, and rural communities. The schools varied in their percentages of students qualifying for free/reduced priced lunches, with ranges from 92% to only 4%. There were 33 teachers with 448 students in the total sample.
The total sample included third grade students who were 36% White, 51% Black, 3% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 3% multiracial. The report states that there were no differences in the racial composition or percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced priced lunch between the intervention and comparison groups. The gender mix of the sample was not reported.
The Individualized Student Intervention involved differentiated reading instruction for students that was delivered in small groups. The teachers worked with small groups using flexible learning strategies that were selected based on the students' reading skills. Other students in the classroom worked on other projects when not working in the small groups. Teachers in the intervention group were specifically instructed to provide instruction to students based on their individual skill levels. This intervention was part of the regular 90-minute block of time dedicated to literacy instruction. The teachers used the Open Court Reading curriculum during instruction.
The comparison condition was implemented during the regular 90-minute block dedicated to literacy instruction; these teachers also used the Open Court Reading curriculum. In addition, the comparison teachers implemented an alternative vocabulary intervention that focused on building students' comprehension skills by helping the teachers use an adaptation of a teacher study group model. Teachers in the comparison group were not instructed to use differentiated instruction; however, they could if they wanted to.
No support for implementation was reported.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube