Hancock, C. M. (2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06), 2139A.
Reviewed: July 2013
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 Read Naturally.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Use Fluency (WUF) test |
Read Naturally vs. Connecting Math Concepts |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
53.10 |
50.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Read Naturally vs. Connecting Math Concepts |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
118.11 |
117.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
Curriculum-Based Measurement: Cloze probe |
Read Naturally vs. Connecting Math Concepts |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
22.70 |
23.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Curriculum-Based Measurement: Test of Reading Fluency (TORF) |
Read Naturally vs. Connecting Math Concepts |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
117.38 |
112.38 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in one elementary school in the Kyrene School District in Tempe, Arizona.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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