Calderon, Margarita; And Others (1997). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED405428
Reviewed: November 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.
Reviewed: February 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 Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (BCIRC).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Norm-Referenced Assessment Program for Texas: Language |
Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (BCIRC) vs. Business as usual |
end of semester |
Grade 3;
|
34.90 |
30.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Norm-Referenced Assessment Program for Texas: Reading |
Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (BCIRC) vs. Business as usual |
end of semester |
Grade 3;
|
33.16 |
23.83 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 97% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 3% |
English language learners who participated in the study attended seven elementary schools in the El Paso, Texas school district. Overall, 79% of students in the district were Hispanic and 27% had limited English proficiency. The schools selected for inclusion in the study had the highest rates of poverty and the lowest levels of student achievement among the schools in the district with Spanish-dominant English language learners.
The study included 222 Spanish-speaking English language learners in the second (n = 120) and third (n = 102) grades. The students’ primary home language was Spanish. A total of 85 third-grade students (52 in the treatment group, 33 in the comparison group) were posttested in English in reading and language. Three intervention and four comparison schools participated in the two-year study
BCIRC students were assigned to cooperative learning teams consisting of four heterogeneously grouped students (that is, groups contained a mix of high, medium, and low achieving students). BCIRC attempts to promote student discussion and dialogue during cooperative learning activities designed to help students develop critical thinking and reading comprehension skills as well as the overall ability to use academic English. Activities include partner reading, recognition of key components of a story, vocabulary development, creative writing, and tasks designed to promote reading comprehension. Teachers model reading strategies—such as making and confirming a prediction— before, during, and after reading. Cooperative groups then apply the demonstrated strategy while attempting to comprehend stories selected from their classroom text. Students were taught for two hours each day. One half-hour of the two-hour instruction included English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction for both intervention and comparison groups. Stories for both intervention and comparison classrooms were selected from the Macmillan Campanitas de Oro Spanish basal reading series. By the middle of the second grade, students alternated every two weeks between the Spanish basal and the Macmillan Transitional Reading Program basal series in English.
The comparison group included four schools matched to the three intervention schools on demographic characteristics and academic ranking within the district. Further, individual classes within the intervention schools were matched with classes in the comparison schools on mean pretest scores. Comparison group students used the Macmillan Campanitas de Oro Spanish basal reading series and began to alternate between the Spanish basal and the Macmillan Transitional Reading Program basal series in English each day. Students received the same amount of instruction (two hours, including one half-hour of ESL instruction) but used the teachers’ editions of the McMillan reading series for guidance rather than the BCIRC approach. Overall, teachers in the comparison condition were trained in and used round-robin oral reading and workbook practice activities.
The effects of the intervention on English language learner outcomes were assessed using the Norm-Referenced Assessment Program for Texas (NAPT). Although the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) was used in the study to assess reading outcomes, results are not reported here because the measure was administered in Spanish. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2 for a more detailed description of the outcome measures.)
Teachers implementing the intervention received extensive staff development, but more specific information about the training was not provided. Teachers in comparison schools received training related to cooperative learning.
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