Lang, Laura; Torgesen, Joseph; Vogel, William; Chanter, Carol; Lefsky, Evan; Petscher, Yaacov (2009). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v2 n2 p149-175. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ866974
Reviewed: October 2009
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test-Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 9: Moderate risk;
|
1904.77 |
1870.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test-Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 9: High risk;
|
1682.89 |
1729.21 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 9% | |
| White | 51% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 60% |
The study included seven comprehensive high schools in a large Florida school district.
A total of 1,265 ninth-grade students in 87 classrooms were identified as struggling readers (at high or moderate risk) based on prior-year reading performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Students scoring in the high-risk or moderate-risk categories were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions— REACH, RISE, or READ 180—or to a control condition—School Offered Accelerated Reading (SOAR). After multiple imputation and removing 68 outliers, the analysis sample across all conditions was reduced to 1,197 participants. For this review, the analysis sample consisted of 100 high-risk students who received READ 180 and 90 high-risk students in the comparison group, as well as 207 moderate-risk students who received READ 180 and 202 moderate-risk students in the comparison group.
The intervention group received an intensive reading program for 90 minutes per day. The program, which is a combination of instructional, modeled, and independent reading components, begins with 20 minutes of teacher-led, whole-group instruction followed by three 20-minute rotations. The rotations last for a total of 60 minutes and include small-group direct instruction, use of READ 180 software, and independent and modeled reading. Once all rotations are complete, the class convenes for 10 minutes of whole-group wrap-up. The study reported students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation.
Students in the comparsion group received the district’s standard curriculum: SOAR. The implementation of SOAR involved the following materials: the Reading and Writing Sourcebook by Great Source, the Reader’s Handbook by Great Source, Reading Nonfiction by Jamestown, and the Daybook of Critical Reading and Writing by Great Source. The SOAR classes typically included FCAT-preparatory activities aligned with the Sunshine State Standards and Benchmarks that were available to all students through a software program called FCAT Explorer. This type of practice provided students opportunities to answer questions based on the types of text (70% informational and 30% literary) and length of passages (range of words, 300–1400; average number of words, 800) that they would encounter on the ninth-grade test (Florida Department of Education, 2007).
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test–Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS). For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1.
School leaders identified teachers to deliver the READ 180 and SOAR interventions. Both READ 180 teachers and SOAR teachers received coaching and feedback related to fidelity and quality of implementation from two sources: the project coordinator and the school-level reading coach assigned to each school. Professional development continued throughout the year for both READ 180 and SOAR teachers, and intervention-specific monthly support meetings were held to address concerns. The publisher of the READ 180 intervention was asked to participate in the provision of materials, the conduct of professional development for READ 180 teachers and school leaders, and the development of fidelity of implementation checklists.
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