Jewell, M. E. (1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11A), 107–3473.
Reviewed: August 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 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
May posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
52.20 |
49.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
May posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
50.48 |
49.07 |
No |
-- |
The study took place in four schools in one district in the United States. The participating elementary schools served 9% to 27% minority students, and less than 15% of the student population received special education services.
This study is a quasi-experiment that initially included a sample of 51 second- to sixth-grade classrooms assigned to one of three conditions: (1) comparison; (2) treatment, receiving Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition® training in the summer preceding implementation; and (3) treatment, receiving the program training as well as follow-up support during the school year. The treatment classrooms were matched with comparison classrooms on the Gates–MacGinitie pretest scores. This review focuses on comparisons of the 15 classrooms taught by teachers who received either program training or program training with follow-up support, and the 15 classrooms in the comparison group.
There were two forms of the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition® intervention: (1) training only and (2) training plus follow-up support. The intervention group participated in teacher-led basal-related activities, partner reading, story-related writing, reading of words aloud, word meaning activities, story retelling, spelling, direct instruction in reading comprehension, home reading, integrated language arts and writing, weekly tests, and cooperative learning groups of four students. The program was implemented in intervention classrooms for seven to eight months.
Comparison group teachers continued to teach in accordance with their own style and used the regular district-adopted reading and language arts program (basal materials). All comparison schools used the same reading and language arts curricula: Houghton Mifflin Reading (Durr et al., 1989) and the Silver Burdett & Ginn English series (Ragno, Toth, & Gray, 1988).
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Test Comprehension and Vocabulary subtests and the Basic Academic Skills Sample Reading Proficiency subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
The study’s investigator provided Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition® training and follow-up assistance. The training took place during five 4-hour sessions (spanning one week) during the summer preceding the study. Teachers were provided with lesson plans that were aligned to the district’s basal series curriculum. Teachers practiced the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition® components and received feedback from the investigator and peers. All Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition®–trained teachers participated in two follow-up meetings during the school year. Teachers assigned to receive classroom-based follow-up assistance also had the investigator observe lessons (on average, about 10 observations), provide feedback, demonstrate teaching procedures, and make recommendations for future lessons.
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