Hofstetter, C. H., Strick, B., Der-Martirosian, C., Ong-Dean, C., Long, P., & Lou, Y. Y. (2011). Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Reviewed: January 2023
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving one year dosage;
|
N/A |
304.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving two years of dosage;
|
N/A |
312.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving two years dosage;
|
N/A |
299.18 |
No |
|
|
|
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school students receiving one year of dosage;
|
N/A |
303.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving one year dosage;
|
N/A |
292.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving three years of dosage;
|
N/A |
325.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving three years dosage and in the grades in which they take this test;
|
353.26 |
353.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving two years dosage;
|
N/A |
307.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving three years dosage;
|
N/A |
312.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school students receiving two years of dosage;
|
N/A |
301.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving three years dosage;
|
N/A |
305.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school students receiving three years of dosage;
|
N/A |
295.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving two years dosage and in the grades in which they take this test;
|
359.58 |
360.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving two years dosage and in the grades in which they take this test;
|
348.34 |
344.14 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving one year of dosage;
|
N/A |
304.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving one year of dosage;
|
N/A |
40.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving two years dosage;
|
N/A |
43.47 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving one year dosage;
|
N/A |
42.98 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving two years dosage;
|
N/A |
48.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving two years of dosage;
|
N/A |
45.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school students receiving one year of dosage;
|
N/A |
47.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students receiving three years dosage;
|
N/A |
50.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving one year dosage;
|
N/A |
38.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELLs receiving three years dosage;
|
N/A |
47.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school students receiving three years of dosage;
|
N/A |
51.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Degrees of Reading Power |
Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school students receiving two years of dosage;
|
N/A |
51.35 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 12% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| White | 26% |
| Hispanic | 47% |
The sample included middle and high school students that were enrolled in 8 schools in the San Diego Unified School District. These schools included 4 clusters of one high school and one middle school. Students were in seventh through tenth grades when the study began (and grades 7-12 during the evaluation period). A total of 5 school participated in year 1 and 8 schools participated in years 2-4.
Information on the students in the evaluation is not provided. However, students in these schools are characterized as largely socio-economically disadvantaged (74-100% received free or reduced-price lunch across schools) with high percentages of English learners (12-44%). 7-19% of students had a disability across schools. Students had the following racial composition: 12% African American, 26% White, 47% Hispanic, 6% Indochinese, 3% Asian, and 3% Filipino.
The SLIC Targeted Initiative occurred in schools receiving SLIC Whole School. Students in the targeted initiative group participated in a targeted SLIC class. In this class, students are given instruction on text features and the use of these features to rapidly understand a passage. They are also instructed in other strategic reading behaviors including cross-checking, note-making, and using contextual clues to understand vocabulary. Once randomized into this group, students remain classified as intervention students; however, the intervention stops when students can no longer be classified as struggling readers. Students in both groups received SLIC Whole School. For this intervention, all content-area teachers were offered professional development in the Strategies for Literacy Independence across the Curriculum (SLIC) model, developed by Trevor McDonald and Christina Thornley. Participation was generally voluntary and the percentage teachers participating, as well as the content-areas that received the most support, varied across schools. A SLIC coach was assigned to each school to provide professional development and one-on-one support to teachers and school leadership. With the support of SLIC developers, SLIC coaches provided content-area teachers with professional development based on a set of literacy strategies developed to enhance reading and writing skills such as strategic reading behaviors, increasing interaction with text, previewing texts, note taking, reading complex texts and writing for academic purposes. SLIC coaches support teachers through observation and providing feedback, collaborative planning, coaching, and review of student work. Authors expected participating teachers to participate in approximately 27 hours of professional development over the course of a year.
Experiences for students in the control group varied across schools in the study. Most often students took elective classes however in some schools control students were exposed to a literacy intervention or supplemental ELA support. Students also received SLIC Whole School (see above). Thus, this evaluation considers the impact of SLIC Targeted Initiative over and above SLIC Whole School.
SLIC coaches support teachers through observation and providing feedback, collaborative planning, coaching, and review of student work. Authors expected participating teachers to participate in approximately 27 hours of professional development over the course of a year.
Reviewed: March 2016
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.
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