Holmes, C. Thomas; Keffer, Ronald L. (1995). Journal of Educational Research, v89 n1 p47-50. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ522333
Reviewed: October 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT Verbal |
ACT/SAT Test Preparation and Coaching Programs vs. None |
6 Weeks |
High school students;
|
402.94 |
361.39 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 6% |
The study took place at a high school in rural northeast Georgia with students in college-preparatory-level English classes. The high school population was comprised of about 15% Black students, and about 16% were in the free/reduced-price lunch program. Overall, 59% of the students in this high school typically enroll in college. The average SAT scores at the school are below the national average.
The sample demographics in the study were not representative of the school population. Four students in the study sample were Black, and none participated in the free/reduced-price lunch program. Nineteen (56%) of the 34 students in the intervention group were female. Twenty-eight (78%) of the 36 students in the comparison group were female. The average age of both groups was about 15 and a half years.
The intervention in this study was a computerized program designed to help students improve their vocabulary scores on the SAT through the study of Latin and Greek root words. The program focused on a list of 90 common Latin root words and 11 common Greek root words. About 800 English words and derivatives have these 101 roots. Participants in the intervention group were allowed two 45-minute periods per week to use the program. Times were available both before and after school. The program employed a flash card-style interface in which students matched definitions to root words. Once students mastered the root words, they were then given a similar matching task with the English derivatives. The intervention period lasted 6 weeks.
Students in the comparison group were not offered the computerized coaching program. They were recruited from the same college-preparatory English classes as the intervention students. No information about any alternative services received by the comparison students was provided in the study.
No information was provided regarding support for implementation.
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