WWC review of this study

The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention.

Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107–131. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ963705

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
    , grades

Reviewed: February 2023

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

Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension

Targeted reading intervention—Amendum et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual

8 Months

Full sample - focal students only;
167 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.

  • Rural
    • 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



Study sample

"Among focal students only, 39 percent of the treatment group was white, compared to 17 percent of the comparison group. Of the focal group, 26 percent of the treatment group was African American, while 40 percent of the comparison group was. 61 percent of the focal treatment group was male, while 60 percent of the focal comparison group was male. 54 percent of the focal treatment group was in kindergarten, compared to 44 percent of the comparison focal group. Overall, the authors excluded students with severe disabilities and without basic conversational English skills."

Comparison Group

"Teachers implemented the intervention individually to students (although they may eventually group 2 or 3 students with similar needs together to receive instruction). The intervention would occur in the classroom; while the teacher focused on one student, the other students would be at literacy centers, working independently in the classroom, or receiving instruction via a teaching assistant. Sessions were 15-20 minutes. The teacher would rotate the student that was the focus of the intervention throughout the year so that all five students in the classroom received the intervention (the teacher would move on to a different student once the first student had ""accelerated sufficiently to be able to better learn from the general classroom environment""). The intervention lasted from October to May. Each TRI session includes three components: (1) 2-5 minutes on re-reading for fluency; (2) 6-10 minutes for word work; and (3) 7-10 minutes for guided oral reading. The first component (re-reading for fluency) requires the student to read a passage they had read the previous day and also may include the teacher modeling fluency reading with expression. The goal is to increase automatic word identification and general reading fluency. The second component (word work) involved teachers selected various strategies to teach phonological decoding and sight word recognition. The strategies included teaching the alphabetic principle; phoneme-grapheme relationship; phonemic segmenting and blending; decoding phonemes; sight word practice; ""chunking"" multisyllabic words. The third component involved instruction on comprehension strategies. Teachers scaffolded summarizing, predicting, and making connections to concepts read. In each session, the teacher and student would read a book and have a conversation about it to improve comprehension. Teachers would also give support on word identification and vocabulary. As discussed in more detail in D63 below, TRI teachers also received multiple professional development opportunities. "

Support for implementation

Teachers received multiple professional development opportunities to help implement the intervention. First, there was an in-person summer institute for the teachers, on-site consultants, and principals that reviewed the TRI content and practiced specific strategies from the program. Second, teachers were given weekly or biweekly literacy coaching during TRI implementation via web-conferencing. Literacy coaches could provide real-time, interactive feedback on the teacher's implementation of the program either directly during the session or in a separate meeting immediately following the session. Third, teachers had weekly web-conferencing meetings with other teachers implementing the program and with on-site consultants. In these meetings, teachers would discuss implementation with focal students and the group would problem solve any commonly occurring issues. Finally, teachers had monthly 2-hour (or bimonthly 3.5-hour) web-conferencing professional development. Content of these sessions included additional TRI strategies, advanced problem-solving, or other content that teachers thought would be useful in their implementation of TRI.

Reviewed: February 2016

Does not meet WWC standards

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

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

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