Fuchs, Douglas; And Others (1996). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED393269
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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Questions Correct |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
5.63 |
4.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Maze Choices Correct |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
11.00 |
8.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehension Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Words Correct |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-6;
|
253.28 |
230.88 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 78% |
The study was conducted in 12 elementary schools from three school districts in a southern state in the United States.
The sample for this study included a total of 120 students—40 low-performing students with learning disabilities, 40 low-performing students without learning disabilities, and 40 averageperforming students. The students were in grades 2–6, and the average age was 10. This report reviews findings for only the 40 students with learning disabilities. The study design was a randomized controlled trial in which 22 schools in a southern state in the United States were categorized as high, middle, or low based on mean reading scores and the percentage of students who qualified for free or reduced-price meals. Within each of these three groups, schools were randomly assigned to either PALS or comparison conditions. After randomization of schools, teachers who had one or more students with learning disabilities in their reading class were recruited to participate in the study. The recruitment efforts resulted in a sample of 40 teachers (20 PALS and 20 comparison) from 12 of the 22 schools. Each of the 40 teachers was then asked to identify three students to participate in the study: one low-performing student with a learning disability (identified in accordance with state regulations), one lowperforming student who did not have a learning disability, and one average-performing student.While schools were randomly assigned to groups, this study was reviewed as a quasi-experimental design because teachers knew their treatment condition when they selected student participants. In addition, teachers were only recruited after random assignment (although teachers were not told their condition during recruitment), and 10 of the schools that were randomized had no eligible teachers. The remaining 12 schools participated throughout the study and included 40 teachers and 40 students with learning disabilities. The PALS and comparison schools in the analysis differed on some measures (such as the percentage of rural schools); however, the principal investigator concluded that the environments were similar based on important measures such as poverty and achievement.
PALS was conducted during regularly scheduled reading instruction, 35 minutes per day, three times per week, for 15 weeks. Students were trained to be PALS tutors and tutees in five 45-minute sessions during the week prior to the start of the intervention.
Comparison teachers conducted reading lessons using their normal approach (business-as-usual).
The study authors assessed students with the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB) at the pretest and posttest time points. Reading fluency was measured by the Words Correct (number of words read correctly in three minutes across two passages) and Maze Choices (number of correct maze replacements in two minutes) subscales of the CRAB. Reading comprehension was measured by the Questions Correct subscale of the CRAB (average number of questions answered correctly across two 10-question samples). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
PALS teachers were trained at a full-day workshop at which they learned both about PALS procedures and how to train their students on PALS. At the end of the workshop, teachers were given a PALS manual that included scripted lessons to be used when conducting student training.
Reviewed: May 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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
Reviewed: January 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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Questions Correct |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Average age: 9.8 years;
|
6.02 |
5.18 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 83% |
The study took place in 12 elementary and middle schools across three districts of a southern state. Six schools were part of a large urban school system; six were in two suburban districts.
Researchers divided 22 elementary and middle schools into high-level, middle-level, and lowlevel groups and then randomly assigned each school to either Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies or the control condition within each group. High-level schools had a relatively high mean reading score and comparatively low proportion of students on free or reduced-price lunch; low-level schools had the reverse profile; and middle-level schools fell between the two on both indices. After random assignment of the 22 schools, 40 teacher volunteers in 12 schools (55% of the schools randomly assigned11) were selected to participate in the study. These 12 schools were equally divided between Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies and the control condition and among the high-, mid-, and low-level designations (4 schools in each strata). These 40 teachers, 20 in each condition, taught grades 2–6 and were selected according to their reading class composition (classes needed at least one learning disabled student to be eligible). After random assignment was conducted, each teacher identified three students to participate in the study: a low achiever with a learning disability, a low achiever without a learning disability, and an average achiever. Participating students’ average age was 9.78 years. In a majority of classes, teachers also identified replacement students in the event that the originally identified students moved away. This review focused on comparisons across student type and included 60 students in the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies group and 60 students in the comparison group.9
Twenty teachers implemented Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies during regularly scheduled reading instruction, three times per week for 35 minutes each time. The study reported students’ outcomes after 15 weeks of program implementation. Students engaged in three reading activities: partner reading with retell, paragraph summary, and prediction relay. During the first activity, each partner read aloud connected text for 5 minutes, for a total of 10 minutes. “Retells” lasted 1 or 2 minutes, depending on grade level. In the first 4 weeks of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, paragraph summary (also called paragraph “shrinking”) was conducted for 20 minutes. During the next 11 weeks, time for paragraph summary was reduced by half to make room for prediction relay. Teachers relied on their basal text for primary reading materials.
Twenty comparison teachers conducted reading instruction in their typical fashion. A majority used the basal reading series prescribed by their school districts. Reading instruction usually meant students reading silently from the basal texts, followed by teacher-led, large-group discussion. Researchers observed little explicit teaching of reading and comprehension in Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies and comparison classrooms.
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB), which generated three scores: the number of words, questions, and maze choices correct. Only the number of questions correct outcome qualified for this report. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Teachers attended a full-day workshop, during which they were shown how to use the program with their students and maintain Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies activities during the 15-week treatment. After the workshop, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies project staff attended seven 45-minute lessons being taught by study treatment group teachers to provide help to teachers as necessary. These seven training sessions were not counted as part of the 15-week treatment.
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