Eddy, R. M., Ruitman, H. T., Hanken, N., & Sloper, M (2010). La Verne, CA: Cobblestone Applied Research and Evaluation, Inc.
Reviewed: November 2017
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 Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 7,8,10;
|
532.49 |
534.85 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade: 10;
|
550.66 |
549.46 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 15% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| White | 22% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
The study took place in eight schools in Arizona, California, Ohio, and Oregon. Three grade levels (7, 8, 10) were included in the study.
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.
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 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.
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.
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