WWC review of this study

The effects of Pearson Prentice Hall Literature (2010) on student performance: Efficacy study.

Eddy, R. M., Ruitman, H. T., Hanken, N., & Sloper, M (2010). La Verne, CA: Cobblestone Applied Research and Evaluation, Inc.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
    , grades

Reviewed: November 2017

No statistically significant positive
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
Significant? Improvement

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total

Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual

9 Months

Grades 7,8,10;
1,518 students




Show Supplemental Findings

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total

Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual

9 Months

Grade: 10;
591 students





Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

  • 14% English language learners

  • Female: 48%
    Male: 52%

  • Rural, Suburban
    • 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

    Arizona, California, Ohio, Oregon
  • Race
    Native American
  • Ethnicity
    Not Hispanic or Latino    


The study took place in eight schools in Arizona, California, Ohio, and Oregon. Three grade levels (7, 8, 10) were included in the study.

Study sample

The study was conducted in the 2009–10 school year. Both the developer and the evaluator nominated potential study schools, beginning in February 2009 and continuing through summer 2009. Recruitment was targeted to schools with diverse student ethnicity and lower socioeconomic status that had at least two teachers with multiple sections of language arts or English classes. In the summer of 2009, within each of the eight participating schools, teachers were randomly assigned either to implement Prentice Hall Literature© (2010) or to implement the regular curriculum (the comparison group). Altogether, there were 16 teachers randomly assigned to the intervention group and 13 teachers assigned to the comparison group. The WWC determined that the study’s randomized controlled trial design was jeopardized because the analytic sample included students who moved into the study classrooms after random assignment. The analysis sample included 1,518 students: 744 students were in the Prentice Hall Literature group, and 774 students were in the comparison group. The pretest for the study was conducted in August or September 2009, depending on the start date of each school. The intervention began in August 2009 at seven schools and in September 2009 at one school. The eight schools included six suburban schools with at least 1,200 students in each school, and two rural schools with at least 700 students in each school. Seven of the eight schools had at least 35% of students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Most communities had median household incomes between $30,000 and $60,000. Students were 52% male and 48% female; 55% Hispanic, 22% White, 15% African American, 3% American Indian, 1% Asian, and 3% multiracial; and 86% spoke English as their primary language.

Intervention Group

The intervention teachers implemented Prentice Hall Literature© (2010). The intervention generally includes six units focused on a specific genre for each grade level (e.g., nonfiction, fiction, poetry, etc.). Instruction is organized by a “Big Question” which is introduced at the beginning of each unit and revisited throughout the unit to reinforce concepts. Prentice Hall Literature© (2010) includes paired reading selections of differing difficulty so instruction can be tailored to students’ ability level. Ancillary materials are available to teachers to further enhance instruction of students of different ability levels. The Reality Central textbook and accompanying writing journal, for example, provide students with additional reading practice below grade level. In the present study, participating teachers were instructed to implement Units 1–6 throughout the school year, and the Reality Central textbook and other supplementary materials (e.g., study workbooks) were made available.

Comparison Group

Comparison teachers implemented their normal language arts curriculum. Most (10 out of 13) comparison teachers used a textbook to guide instruction, and followed district pacing guidelines so specific material would be covered ahead of state testing. Many of these 10 teachers also supplemented textbook instruction with their own writing and vocabulary activities. The remaining three comparison teachers did not use a textbook to guide instruction, and instead read novels and short stories followed by activities that the teachers either created themselves or found on the internet.

Support for implementation

All participating schools received training prior to the start of the study, in August or September 2009, depending on the timing of implementation. All participating teachers in the intervention group received a 2-day training on Prentice Hall Literature© (2010) prior to the start of the school year to review program components and learn about online features of the program. A follow-up training was also held a few weeks into the school year. All teachers in the intervention group received the teacher’s edition textbook, student textbooks, and all available ancillary materials.


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

back to top