WWC review of this study

The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early impact and implementation findings (NCEE report no. 2008-4015).

Kemple, J. J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S., & Drummond, K. (2008). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499778

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    1,140
     Students
    , grade
    9
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2010

Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest

Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 9: Cohort 2;
1,115 students

90.43

89.05

No

--
More Outcomes

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest

Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual

End of school year posttest

Grade 9: Cohort 1;
1,140 students

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;
1,140 students

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;
1,115 students

93.59

94.02

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 0% English language learners

  • 47% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 50%
    Male: 50%
  • Race
    Black
    41%
    White
    30%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    25%
    Not Hispanic
    75%

  • Urban

Setting

The study was conducted in 17 schools located in 10 school districts across the United States.

Study sample

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).

Intervention Group

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.

Comparison Group

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).

Outcome descriptions

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.

Support for implementation

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top