Stevens, Robert J.; And Others (1991). Journal of Educational Psychology, v83 n1 p8-16. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ436861
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Idea Questions |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 3 and 4;
|
6.40 |
4.74 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Inference Questions |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 3 and 4;
|
5.69 |
5.28 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) |
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 3 and 4;
|
-0.07 |
-0.09 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 69% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| White | 19% |
| Hispanic | 11% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 89% |
This study took place in four schools in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The study is a classroom-level randomized controlled trial. A total of 30 third- and fourth-grade classrooms in four schools were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (balanced by grade): 1. 10 classrooms with 153 students were assigned to the CIRC® (direct instruction with cooperative learning) group, 2. 10 classrooms with 166 students were assigned to the direct instruction group without cooperative learning (DI), and 3. 10 classrooms with 167 students were assigned to the business-as-usual comparison group. Both groups 1 and 2 used CIRC® materials on main idea comprehension during direct instruction, but group 2 did not use the cooperative learning component of CIRC®. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, the effects of CIRC® are estimated by comparing the CIRC® group against the business- as-usual comparison group. These results are shown in Appendices C.1 and C.2.
Four days each week, the direct instruction with cooperative learning group (group 1) spent half of its reading time using CIRC® materials. Teachers taught comprehension strategies and metacomprehension skills as a part of the CIRC® curriculum. Following this instruction, students worked in teams on follow-up activities. The study reported student outcomes after four weeks of program implementation.
The classrooms in the comparison group used traditional methods and curriculum materials. This included the use of a basal reading series with related workbook and follow-up worksheet activities.
Two investigator-developed assessments were used: One measured a student’s ability to recall the main idea of a passage, and a second measured a student’s ability to make correct inferences from a reading passage. End-of-year reading achievement scores from a standardized test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, also were used as outcomes in this study. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Teachers in the intervention condition received a one-day (six-hour) training in CIRC® by a certified trainer and received all of the supplemental materials necessary for the CIRC® reading program.
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.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1989). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification (Report No. 44). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
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.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1989). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification (Report No. 44). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Reviewed: December 2005
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 Direct Instruction and CIRC.
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