Bramlett, Ronald K. (1994). Journal of School Psychology, v32 n1 p67-84. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ480774
Reviewed: June 2012
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Word Analysis |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
667.00 |
662.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
687.00 |
682.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in eight school districts in rural southern Ohio. The number of participating schools was not provided in the study.
Eighteen third-grade teachers from eight school districts volunteered to participate in this quasi-experimental study. They were matched on school district and years of teaching experience and equally divided into two groups. In the analysis sample, the CIRC® group included 198 students in nine classrooms, and the comparison group included 194 students in nine classrooms. Each of the two groups of children was divided into three ability levels (lowest 33%, middle 33%, and upper 34%) based on the students’ California Achievement Test (CAT) total reading score percentile rankings (administered prior to implementation of CIRC®). These subgroup results are presented in Appendix D.2.
Students in the nine intervention classes were given only the reading components of the CIRC® program: basal-related activities, partner reading, story structure, words out loud, word meaning, story retelling, spelling, direct instruction in reading comprehension, and independent reading. The composition component of the CIRC® intervention was not used. The study reported student outcomes after one school year of program implementation.
Students in the comparison group received their regular reading curriculum, which was not described in the study. Teachers in the comparison group were promised CIRC® training at the completion of the study, and six of them were subsequently trained.
Teachers administered four CAT measures in the fall of 1990 and in the spring of 1991: Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Total Reading, and Word Analysis. (Note that the Total Reading measure is comprised of Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension.) Findings for the Total Reading and Word Analysis outcomes can be found in Appendix C.1. Subtest findings for Reading Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension can be found in Appendix D.1. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The teachers received a one-day (six-hour) training in CIRC® by a certified trainer, as well as the project supplemental materials. Following training, the teachers were given assistance via observation and behavioral consultation sessions (approximately 15–30 minutes). Teachers also attended three half-day meetings during the study year to discuss implementation issues. The teachers in the comparison group were promised CIRC® training and materials upon completion of the study’s collection of outcome data.
Reviewed: September 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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
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).
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.
Bramlett, R. K. (1992, August). Cooperative learning: A field study with implications for school psychologists. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
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
Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide