Gunn, Barbara; Biglan, Anthony; Smolkowski, Keith; Ary, Dennis (2000). Journal of Special Education, v34 n2 p90-103. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ611322
Reviewed: June 2016
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.
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.
Gunn, Barbara; Biglan, Anthony; Smolkowski, Keith; Ary, Dennis. (2000). The Efficacy of Supplemental Instruction in Decoding Skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students in Early Elementary School. Journal of Special Education, v34 n2 p90-103.
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 Reading Mastery.
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.
Gunn, Barbara; Smolkowski, Keith; Biglan, Anthony; Black, Carol; Blair, Jason. (2005). Fostering the Development of Reading Skill Through Supplemental Instruction: Results for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students. Journal of Special Education, v39 n2 p66-85.
Gunn, Barbara; Smolkowski, Keith; Biglan, Anthony; Black, Carol. (2002). Supplemental Instruction in Decoding Skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students in Early Elementary School: A Follow-Up. Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p69-79.
Reviewed: February 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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 62% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 38% |
Reviewed: July 2007
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 Corrective Reading.
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.
Gunn, Barbara; Smolkowski, Keith; Biglan, Anthony; Black, Carol. (2002). Supplemental Instruction in Decoding Skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students in Early Elementary School: A Follow-Up. Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p69-79.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Mastery.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grades K–3;
|
51.75 |
24.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grades K–3;
|
11.63 |
5.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grades K–3;
|
19.63 |
14.11 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 62% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 38% |
The study was part of a larger evaluation of a program in nine elementary schools across three school districts in Oregon.
The original study involved 156 students in grades K–3. Students in kindergarten, first, and second grades were assessed during the spring prior to beginning the first year of the intervention (Time 1), assessed again one year later (Time 2), and assessed a final time the following year (Time 3). Students were selected for participation in the study on the basis of low reading achievement and aggressive tendencies. Specifically, students who scored below grade level on reading assessments and high on aggression (as rated by teachers) were included in the study to examine the effect of supplemental reading instruction on students meeting these criteria. A post hoc analysis was conducted on a small portion of these students (n=17) who were English language learners and for whom pre- and posttest data were available (there were 19 of these students at the beginning of the study). All estimates of intervention effects are based on this subsample. The English language learners were included in the process of randomly assigning all participants (limited and fluent English proficient) to a condition. All students were grouped by ethnicity and then rank-ordered by reading ability. Participants were matched, beginning with poorest readers, and randomly assigned to a condition. That is, students from each pair were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison condition.
The intervention group received their usual reading instruction supplemented by Reading Mastery if they were beginning readers in grades 1 or 2. Students below grade level in grades 3 or 4 were put into an appropriate level of SRA Corrective Reading. Both programs include components that facilitate the development of beginning reading skills, but the programs differ in instructional methodology. Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading both entail explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, sound-letter correspondence, and blending. New sounds were introduced to students assigned to the Corrective Reading group at a faster pace than to students in the Reading Mastery group, and stories used for the Corrective Reading group were selected based on their appeal to older students. Relative to English speaking peers, English language learning students were provided additional time per lesson if assistants needed to explain English vocabulary. Most instruction was conducted in groups of two to three students, though some one-to-one instruction was provided. The program was delivered as a pull-out lasting 25–30 minutes a day.
The comparison group of English language learning students had the same regular reading instruction but did not participate in the supplemental instruction programs.
A series of reading subtests from Woodcock-Johnson were administered four times in the course of the two-year intervention. (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.) Outcomes reported here are drawn from the spring of the second year (that is, after two years of the intervention; reported in Appendix A3). In addition, a follow-up assessment was conducted one year after the conclusion of the study. It is reported in Appendix A4.
Project assistants delivered the intervention to students, supplementing the normal reading instruction delivered by the classroom teacher. In all cases except one, instruction took place as a pull-out program. All assistants received 10 hours of preservice training in testing, student-grouping, general instructional skills, and the theoretical approach of the program. To ensure program delivery met program standards, assistants were observed weekly in the first month of the program and twice a month thereafter.
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.
Gunn, Barbara; Smolkowski, Keith; Biglan, Anthony; Black, Carol. (2002). Supplemental Instruction in Decoding Skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students in Early Elementary School: A Follow-Up. Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p69-79.
Gunn, Barbara; Smolkowski, Keith; Biglan, Anthony; Black, Carol; Blair, Jason. (2005). Fostering the Development of Reading Skill Through Supplemental Instruction: Results for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students. Journal of Special Education, v39 n2 p66-85.
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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide