WWC review of this study

Accelerating reading trajectories: The effects of dynamic research-based instruction.

Hancock, C. M. (2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06), 2139A.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    94
     Students
    , grade
    2
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2013

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

Word Use Fluency (WUF) test

Read Naturally® vs. Connecting Math Concepts

Posttest

Grade 2;
94 students

53.1

50.42

No

--
More Outcomes

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III)

Read Naturally® vs. Connecting Math Concepts

Posttest

Grade 2;
94 students

118.11

117.79

No

--

Curriculum-Based Measurement: Cloze probe

Read Naturally® vs. Connecting Math Concepts

Posttest

Grade 2;
94 students

22.7

23.37

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Curriculum-Based Measurement: Test of Reading Fluency (TORF)

Read Naturally® vs. Connecting Math Concepts

Posttest

Grade 2;
94 students

117.38

112.38

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 11% Free or reduced price lunch
    • 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

    Arizona

Setting

The study took place in one elementary school in the Kyrene School District in Tempe, Arizona.

Study sample

The study involved 94 second-grade students in five classrooms in a single school. The sample included 48 students who received Read Naturally® and 46 who were in the comparison group. Students were randomly assigned into intervention and comparison groups using block randomization procedures. Students completed several initial measures of aptitude and reading achievement; scores were rank-ordered within each classroom, and then each student was matched with a similarly-performing student. Students were then randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the comparison group within matched pairs. No information was reported regarding student ethnicity or gender, but 11% of the students in the school qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The study author did not report any attrition of the sample.

Intervention Group

In addition to the regular curriculum (including reading instruction), the intervention group received 25 minutes of supplemental instruction using Read Naturally® materials four times a week for 11 weeks. In each lesson, the first 5 minutes were spent on oral reading of a selected passage with a teaching assistant. The reading was timed for 1 minute, and the total number of words read correctly was recorded on a graph. The last 20 minutes involved repeated oral reading of curriculum stories either individually or with a cassette tape. Once students practiced a passage eight times (three times with a cassette and five times individually), they did a timed reading with the teacher. If the student achieved mastery (100 words read correctly with three or fewer errors), the student moved on to another passage. Otherwise, the cycle was repeated. The procedures used in this study excluded Read Naturally®’s pre-reading vocabulary instruction component and the Read Naturally® placement system to individualize instruction.

Comparison Group

In addition to their regular curriculum, comparison group students received supplemental instruction using the Connecting Math Concepts curriculum (Level B). This program used worksheets, workbooks, coins, and games to teach basic mathematics skills such as place value, money counting, time, addition, subtraction, and multiplication.

Outcome descriptions

In the comprehension domain, the author used the PPVT-III, the Word Use Fluency (WUF) test, and the Curriculum-Based Measurement: Cloze probe. In the reading fluency domain, the author used the Curriculum-Based Measurement: TORF. The author used initial reading skills, as measured by the TORF, as a covariate to account for baseline differences between groups. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.

Support for implementation

Six teaching assistants were trained over 5 days. Teaching assistants were observed modeling lessons during the training sessions, and then written feedback was provided to them. Teaching assistants were also observed once a week during the first phase, and at least once every 3 weeks during the second phase, receiving feedback as necessary.

 

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

newsflash icon contact icon facebook icon twitter icon
loading
back to top