Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37–50. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ809606
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Decoding Accuracy subtest (My Parents/Pots) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
2.18 |
1.83 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Decoding Accuracy subtest (Planting a Garden/The Field Trip) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
2.58 |
2.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Reading Rate subtest (Planting a Garden/ The Field Trip) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
90.23 |
91.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Reading Rate subtest (My Parents/Pots) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
102.00 |
109.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading expression (Planting a Garden/The Field Trip) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
10.37 |
11.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading expression (My Parents/Pots) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
10.23 |
11.89 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Comprehension Oral Retellings subtest (My Parents/Pots) |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) - Comprehension Oral Retellings subtest (Planting a Garden/ The Field Trip), Reading Comprehension domain |
Scaffolded silent reading and guided repeated oral reading—Reutzel et al. (2008) vs. Intervention |
36 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
0.07 |
No |
-- |
The study was conducted in two schools in the United States. All students received a prescribed 120-min time block each day of reading instruction. Small groups of students received guided reading instruction for 60 minutes each day and they rotated through learning stations every 20 minutes. During the remaining 60 minutes, children received whole-group instruction.
There is no mention of students being classified as ELL or having an identified learning or other disability.
The two interventions (ScSR and GROR, respectively) focused on: mode of reading (silent v oral), nature of reading (wide v repeated), frequency of feedback and monitoring (daily v weekly), social nature of reading (isolated v collaborative), teacher-assigned texts v student-selected texts from leveled classroom libraries, and level of text difficulty (grade v independent-level texts). GROR: The daily treatment began with teachers modeling the fluent reading of the grade-level text that had been selected. The teachers then conducted brief discussions with students about what made their reading fluent. After 5 minutes, students read the grade-level, teacher-selected text as a whole class, with some form of choral reading (i.e., unison, echoic, or antiphonal). After the whole-group reading concluded, students read aloud the assigned text with another student selected as a buddy for paired reading. Occasionally, students practiced reading the text aloud using a fluency phone. Once per month, the teacher selected a text that the students were to practice in anticipation of a performance using readers' theater, radio reading, or recitation for other students in classes within the school.
ScSR: The daily treatment of ScSR began with teachers modeling the fluent reading of a text. Teachers then conducted a brief discussion with students about what made the reading fluent. After 5 minutes, the teachers reminded students to select an independent-level book from an appropriate bin/shelf and that they should select a book from one of the genres shown on the genre wheel. Children were instructed to read these books silently. After students finished one book in each genre, they colored in that slice of the genre wheel. During brief reading conferences, teachers asked students to read part of the book aloud, conducted a brief discussion about the reading, and asked the child to set reasonable goals for completing the book. Each random monitoring conference took about 4-5 minutes and the teacher conducted conferences with 4-5 students per day.
Each teacher had participated in a federally funded Reading Excellence Act (REA) grant. Through this grant, they received, on at least a weekly basis, classroom-based coaching from a school-based reading mentor/literacy coach and weekly follow-up in grade-level study groups. Teachers also received monthly professional development workshops and in-class instruction and demonstrations. Over the summer, the teachers received a stipend to read and discuss the two approaches used in this study and to jointly develop lesson plans. Thus, the four teachers that participated in this study were better prepared than the average teacher in effective variations on fluency practice. With respect to GROR, teachers had been trained using a variety of methods that help students to repeatedly read texts aloud to develop fluency. These methods included: various types of choral reading for whole-group practice including unison, antiphonal, and echoic; paired, assisted, buddy, or dyad reading with a student-selected partner; and readers' theater, radio reading, and recitation. With respect to the ScSR fluency treatment, teachers had been trained using Fountas and Pinnell's (1996) A-Z text gradient or leveling scheme, which was used to determine difficulty levels of reading texts. They were also trained to present lessons early in the year and throughout in the ScSR treatment on how to self-select easy, independent-level reading books. The authors computed gain scores between pre- and post- assessments on different reading passages. Gain scores were calculated using My Parents (post) and Pots (pre) as well as Planting a Garden (post) and The Field Trip (pre). All of the passages came from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Test at the third grade level so presumably, the passages are comparable/have the same difficulty level. For the purposes of completing the SRG and making d-n-d adjustments, we have followed the authors' approach (Pots adjustment for My Parents and The Field Trip adjustment for Planting a Garden).
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