Setting
This study took place in an urban middle school in southeastern Virginia.
Study sample
Three annual cohorts of middle-school students participated in READ 180 from 2003 to 2006. Based on reading pretest scores and teacher recommendations, the school
guidance counselor assigned students in grades 6, 7, and 8 to either the computer-based READ 180 program or the school’s traditional reading-remediation program. In
total, the 2003–04 school year analysis sample included 58 students who participated in READ 180 and 58 students who were in the comparison group. Additional findings
reflecting students’ outcomes by grade and ethnicity can be found in Appendix A4.1.
Intervention Group
The intervention group participated in READ 180 every other day for 90 minutes for the entire school year, in addition to a daily 55-minute language-arts class and 20 minutes
of sustained silent reading. Because of technical problems during the first year, the fidelity of READ 180 program implementation was downgraded from Level One (the highest
level of fidelity) to Level Two, according to the READ 180 Research Protocol and Tools (Scholastic, Inc., 2004). All implementation indicators were met, with the exception of a
daily class schedule of 90-minute blocks five days a week. The study reported students’ outcomes after the first year of program implementation.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received 90 minutes of remedial reading every other day for one quarter of the school year. The traditional reading remediation program provided
focused, skill-based instruction and opportunities to integrate writing and thinking skills. In addition, comparison students participated in 20 minutes of sustained silent reading
and 55 minutes of daily language-arts instruction.
Outcome descriptions
For both pretests and posttests, the author used the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1. The Standardized Test for Assessment of Reading (STAR) and the Scholastic Reading Inventory were also used in the study for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 cohorts of students that were not included in this report.
Support for implementation
READ 180 teachers, all of whom were licensed reading specialists, received comprehensive instructional materials, professional development support, and training in best teaching practices. Comparison-group teachers, all of whom were licensed reading specialists, received a limited professional-development component. No additional details on the professional development provided to comparison group teachers were provided.