WWC review of this study

Fluency Formula second grade study, Long Island, New York 2003-2004: Evaluation research on the effectiveness of Fluency Formula.

Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2005). Retrieved from Scholastic Education Web site: http://teacher.scholastic.com/ products/fluencyformula/pdfs/FF_EffectivessReport.pdf.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    128
     Students
    , grade
    2
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: June 2007

Comprehension outcomes—Substantively important negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest

Fluency Formula vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 2;
128 students

477.46

480.82

No

-11
 
 
Reading fluency outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA)

Fluency Formula vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 2;
128 students

84.85

78.62

No

 
 
10

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Suburban
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Northeast

Setting

The study was conducted in five schools across two suburban school districts in the northeastern United States.

Study sample

The study began with 252 second-grade students (127 in the intervention condition) from 12 classrooms (six classrooms in each condition). Participants came from three schools in one district and two schools in a second district (personal communication). Classrooms were matched on students’ reading ability, demographic variables, and teacher characteristics and then randomly assigned to study conditions. Because Fluency Formula™ does not target high-performing students, analyses were limited to the 143 students scoring at or below the 75th percentile on the Edformation Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA) pretest. Fifteen additional students were removed from analyses: one student who moved from the comparison to intervention group, eight students who exited the program, four students who missed at least half the intervention lessons, and two students with a large number of absences. The final analyses were based on data from 66 intervention students and 62 comparison students. According to data provided in the study, the remaining students (analysis sample) from the intervention and comparison groups were comparable on pretest achievement measures (OFA).

Intervention Group

Fluency Formula™ was delivered as a supplement to the participating schools’ standard reading/English language arts curriculum. Intervention group teachers followed the six-unit curriculum sequence in the Fluency Formula™ Professional Guide. Students classified as “low initial ability” (based on the pretest of oral fluency) received four days a week of Fluency Formula™ instruction (two days of whole-class instruction plus two days of small-group instruction). Students classified as “high initial ability” received two days of whole-class Fluency Formula™ instruction. Once a week, students received a 15-minute take-home assignment.

Comparison Group

The comparison group students received the participating schools’ standard reading/English language arts curriculum with no supplemental materials or instruction. The comparison group teachers were not exposed to the Fluency Formula™ materials or professional development.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome measure in the fluency domain is the Edformation Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA) and the primary outcome in the comprehension domain is the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Passage Comprehension subtest (see Appendixes A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).

Support for implementation

Intervention group teachers attended one after-school professional development session (about two and a half hours) that presented the theoretical basis, components, and implementation of the program. Teachers followed the instructional sequence detailed in the Fluency Formula™ Professional Guide.

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.

  • Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2005). Fluency Formula second grade study, Long Island, New York 2003-2004: A summary of the effectiveness research for Fluency Formula. Retrieved from Scholastic Education Web site: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/.

 

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