WWC review of this study

A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency.

Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 1109–1129. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898468

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    264
     Students
    , grades
    4-6
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: November 2016

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

96.46

96.88

No

--
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

96.48

97.38

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

96.62

97.4

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

92.7

92.09

No

--
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

92.95

92.06

No

--

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

92.89

92.77

No

--
Literacy achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) English Language Arts (ELA) assessment

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

232.65

232.17

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Full sample;
264 students

111

107.27

Yes

 
 
4
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 4;
93 students

88.41

77.68

Yes

 
 
14

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 6;
71 students

133.48

129.5

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 5;
100 students

113.85

118.51

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 81% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 50%
    Male: 50%
  • Race
    Black
    52%
    White
    22%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    21%
    Not Hispanic
    79%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Massachusetts

Setting

The study included students in grades 4, 5, and 6 in three elementary schools in Brockton, Massachusetts. These three schools differed from the four schools studied in Fitzgerald and Hartry (2008).

Study sample

The baseline study sample was evenly distributed between students in grades 4, 5, and 6 (34.4%, 37.1%, 28.6%, respectively) and between girls and boys (50.3% and 49.7%, respectively). Over 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Just over a fifth (21.1%) of students in the baseline sample had disabilities, and over 75% were minority students (51.5% African American, 22.2% White, 20.8% Hispanic, and 5.5% other).

Intervention Group

The intervention group attended a 2-hour afterschool program 4 days per week for 23 weeks from October 2005 through April 2006. The first hour was dedicated to a snack and homework. The second hour was dedicated to READ 180®. In this study, the standard 90-minute READ 180® model (version 1.6) was shortened to 60 minutes to accommodate the district’s afterschool program. Teachers implemented three 20-minute rotations, but did not implement the whole-group lesson. The first rotation consisted of a 20-minute individualized computer-assisted READ 180® instruction, which included structured reading practice with videos, leveled text, and word reading and fluency activities. The rotation focused on a substantive area selected by the student. The second rotation consisted of independent reading of books that were matched to student’s Lexile level. The third rotation consisted of small-group teacher-directed lessons that were tailored to the reading level of the students in each group.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was also implemented 4 days per week over 23 weeks from October 2005 through April 2006. Like the intervention group, the first hour of the comparison condition’s afterschool program was dedicated to a snack and homework. The second hour included both literacy and non-literacy activities; however, the amount of time dedicated to these activities varied each day. Teachers were instructed to implement activities that encouraged attendance in the afterschool program. Each teacher was provided with a selection of 16 activities, including informal art-based projects, games, and commercially-developed materials for afterschool programs in various subject areas (e.g., astronomy, history, geography, space exploration, math, or literacy). The teachers had flexibility in choosing and tailoring which activities to use.

Support for implementation

Classrooms were observed twice during the study period and rated from 1 to 3 (low to high fidelity to the intervention). Ratings ranged from 2.9–3 in observations at the beginning of the intervention period and from 2.3–2.8 in observations at the end of the intervention period.

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

  • Hartry, A., Fitzgerald, R., & Porter, K. (2008). Implementing a structured reading program in an afterschool setting: problems and potential solutions. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 181–210.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

newsflash icon contact icon facebook icon twitter icon
loading
back to top