Kemple, James J.; Corrin, William; Nelson, Elizabeth; Salinger, Terry; Herrmann Suzannah; Drummond, Kathryn (2008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499778
Reviewed: February 2021
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 Xtreme Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
90.20 |
89.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
93.60 |
93.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GRADE): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Cohort 1: 2005-2006 school year;
|
90.49 |
90.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Cohort 2: 2006-2007 school year;
|
93.52 |
93.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GRADE): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Cohort 2: 2006-2007 school year;
|
89.96 |
89.97 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Cohort 1: 2005-2006 school year ;
|
93.64 |
93.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State test scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Xtreme Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample, cohorts 1 and 2;
|
0.10 |
0.03 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 44% | |
| Other or unknown | 39% | |
| White | 17% |
| Hispanic | 33% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 67% |
The study was conducted in 10 school districts across nine states in the United States.
Across the 17 high schools and both student cohorts, the analytic sample for comprehension outcomes included 2,329 ninth-grade students. The analytic sample for general literacy achievement included 1,191 of these students for whom scores on the English language arts state assessment were obtainable from school administrative records. Of the 2,329 students in the analytic sample for comprehension outcomes, 50% spoke another language besides English at home: 44% were African American, 17% were White, 6% were another race, and 33% identified as Hispanic; and 51% were male. Similar information about the composition of the analytic sample for the general literacy achievement domain was not available.
Xtreme Reading is a supplemental literacy curriculum designed to improve the literacy skills of struggling students in grades 6 to 12. The curriculum is primarily designed to help students improve their vocabulary, decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension skills. The Xtreme Reading program was implemented as a yearlong supplemental course in place of a ninth-grade elective class and was offered in addition to students’ regular English language arts classes. The program was scheduled for a minimum of 225 minutes of classroom instruction per week via a 45-minute class every day or a 75- to 90-minute class meeting every other day. Within each participating high school, an experienced, full-time English language arts or social studies teacher volunteered and was subsequently trained to implement the Xtreme Reading program to both student cohorts in the study. This teacher then taught four Xtreme Reading classes with 12 to 15 students per class.
Students in the comparison group received the standard English language arts instruction and continued their participation in a regularly scheduled elective class, such as career and technical education, art, physical education, health, or foreign language. They did not receive supplemental English language arts instruction.
Within each high school assigned to Xtreme Reading, an experienced, full-time English language arts or social studies teacher volunteered to teach the program to both student cohorts. For the first year of the study, the 17 Xtreme Reading teachers received one 5-day summer training before the start of the study year, one 2-day booster training during the year, and three 2-day on-site coaching visits. Of the 17 teachers who volunteered to administer the Xtreme Reading program at the start of the first study year, seven were replaced by the end of the first year. For the second year of the study, newly recruited Xtreme Reading teachers attended a 2-day training immediately prior to a 3-day training for all Xtreme Reading teachers during the summer before the start of the 2006–07 school year. All Xtreme Reading teachers also received a 2-day booster training and three 2-day on-site coaching visits during the second study year. No Xtreme Reading teachers were replaced during the second study year. In both study years, district coordinators were invited to observe the trainings to become familiar with the program in case they had to provide technical assistance or other support to Xtreme Reading teachers during the study period.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Corrin, William; Somers, Marie-Andree; Kemple, James J.; Nelson, Elizabeth; Sepanik, Susan. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the Second Year of Implementation. NCEE 2009-4036. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Somers, M. A., Corrin, W., Sepanik, S., Salinger, T., Levin, J., & Zmach, C. (2010). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities study final report: The impact of supplemental literacy courses for struggling ninth-grade readers [Analysis of Xtreme Reading] (NCEE 2010-4021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Reviewed: July 2010
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 Reading Apprenticeship®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 2;
|
90.43 |
89.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
End of school year posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 1;
|
89.88 |
88.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
End of school year posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 1;
|
93.33 |
92.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 9: Cohort 2;
|
93.59 |
94.02 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 41% | |
| White | 30% |
| Hispanic | 25% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 75% |
The study was conducted in 17 schools located in 10 school districts across the United States.
The study is a randomized controlled trial that used a two-stage random assignment design. First, 34 eligible schools were randomly assigned to implement one of two supplemental literacy programs: 17 schools were assigned to Reading Apprenticeship® and 17 to Xtreme Reading. Second, in each of the 17 schools assigned to Reading Apprenticeship®, 9th-grade students were randomly assigned to Reading Apprenticeship® or to the control group. Eligible students were defined as those who were reading at least two years below grade level. The study includes two cohorts of 9th-grade students: Cohort 1 was formed in the 2005/06 school year and consisted of 686 ninth-grade students who received Reading Apprenticeship® and 454 ninth-grade students in the control group who did not. Cohort 2 was formed in the 2006/07 school year and consisted of 645 ninth-grade students who received Reading Apprenticeship® and 470 ninth-grade students in the control group who did not. Overall and differential attrition rates of student attrition were low for Cohort 1 (30% and 6%, respectively) and Cohort 2 (36% and 3%, respectively).
The intervention group received the Reading Apprenticeship® Academic Literacy course as a supplemental intervention that replaced a 9th-grade elective class, rather than a core academic class. Therefore, students in the intervention group continued to attend their regular English language arts classes. Reading Apprenticeship® Academic Literacy includes a detailed curriculum that is guided by the concept of “flexible fidelity” (i.e., teachers have flexibility in how they implement the curriculum in their day-to-day activities). Students attended Reading Apprenticeship® classes for about 11 hours per month, on average. The study reported students’ outcomes after 7.5 to 9 months of program implementation.
The control group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum and continued their participation in any regularly scheduled elective class (such as career/technical education, art, physical education, health, or foreign language).
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the reading comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). For the posttest, students also took the GRADE vocabulary subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Teachers took part in professional development activities prior to the start of the school year and on an ongoing basis throughout the school year. Training included one 5-day summer training institute as well as two 2-day booster sessions during the school year. They also received three 2-day coaching visits during the year and had access to a special online listserv.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Corrin, W., Somers, M., Kemple, J. J., Nelson, E., & Sepanik, S. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the second year of implementation (NCEE report no. 2009-4036). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
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