Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2011). Lexington: Collaborative Center for Literacy Development, University of Kentucky.
Reviewed: February 2018
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Grade: 9;
|
31.90 |
30.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Grade: 6;
|
30.40 |
29.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Grade: 6; Special Education;
|
26.90 |
25.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Grade: 9; Special Education;
|
27.10 |
28.10 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Middle and high schools in rural Kentucky.
All sixth- and ninth-grade students in participating who met eligibility criteria of scoring two grade levels below grade level (except for students in full-time self-contained special education classrooms). School administration strongly encouraged treatment for qualified students, and intervention students could only opt out of the intervention by a written request from the parent. Most students were white and qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
The LSC was developed to assist adolescents with learning disabilities in the general education classroom and is divided into three strands: (a) Acquisition, (b) Storage, and (c) Expression. Each strand included a number of strategies designed to help students derive information from texts, identify and remember important information, or develop writing or academic competence. Each strategy was taught through eight instructional stages: pretest and commitments; describe; model; verbal practice; controlled practice; feedback; posttest and commitments; and generalization. In the Danville project, all students received a minimum of 250 minutes per week of supplemental reading instruction in a targeted intervention class taught by an LSC teacher (who was also a literacy coach for other teachers in the school). Some intervention classes met for longer than 250 minutes per week. In those classes, teachers were instructed to provide no more than 300 minutes of LSC instruction and to utilize the remaining time on other literacy activities. Over the course of the project, the professional development model for the targeted intervention included summer and follow-up trainings and on-site support from a mentor coach. To learn how to implement the targeted intervention, teachers participated in summer workshops, which were led by a certified LSC trainer from the University of Louisville. Across the project, each LSC teacher received 26 days of workshop training in the targeted intervention in total.
Students who were selected for the comparison group received a regular elective as part of their sixth- or ninth-grade program. A wide range of electives were taken, including band, chorus, civics, and physical education.
Each school employed a literacy coach who was responsible for both teaching the targeted intervention to struggling readers and for coaching content teachers in implementing the whole-school intervention. The coaches could be certified in literacy leadership through the University of Louisville. LSC teachers participated in training and on-site support, and training was provided for school administrators. In year 1, LSC teachers were provided 7 days professional development training and up to 60 hours support from visits by mentor coaches. In year 2, the LSC teachers were provided 7.5 days training and up to 48 hours of on-site support. In year 3, LSC teachers were provided 7 days professional development training and up to 72 hours of on-site support. In year 4, LSC teachers were provided 4.5 days professional development training and up to 60 hours of on-site support. School administrators were provided a total of 6.5 days training in the intervention for the length of the grant. Classroom implementation fidelity was measured through classroom observations and by calculating the percentage of days that students received instruction by a trained LSC teacher (teacher attendance).
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