N/A (2015). U.S. Department of Education.
Reviewed: January 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
96.80 |
94.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TCAP Reading Test |
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
617.20 |
607.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 11% | |
| White | 19% |
| Hispanic | 62% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 38% |
This study took place in 18 schools in the Denver, Colorado area.
In the intervention group, 52.7% of the students were male. In the comparison group, 49.3% of the students were male. In the intervention group, 21.5% of the students were White, 11.4% of the students were Black, and 59.9% of the students were Hispanic. In the comparison group, 16.3% of the students were White, 10.5% of the students were Black, and 65% of the students were Hispanic. In the intervention group, 66.5% of the students had free lunch status and 6.6% of the students had reduced price lunch status. In the comparison group, 73.5% of the students had free lunch status and 6% of the students had reduced price lunch status.
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) in a reading program focused on improving discipline-specific reading achievement. In this study, CSR was implemented in science and social studies classrooms in Denver Public Schools. There was extensive professional development, a focus on ELL students, and a parent outreach component. The project website indicates that the program includes the following: "students work together in collaborative groups to read text and apply comprehension strategies to better understand science, social studies and language arts content. CSR includes methods of monitoring comprehension, reviewing and synthesizing information, asking and answering questions, and taking steps to improve understanding." In this study, the professional development and research assistance were provided by SRI, Denver Public Schools and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU Boulder). Padres y Jovenes Unidos, a Denver-based parent advocacy organization, provided the parent engagement activities. The evaluation report describes an extensive implementation study for both the CSR and the parent outreach components of the intervention, but detail is sparse with regard to the actual content of the CSR intervention and the specifics of the parent outreach activities.
The students in the comparison condition did not receive the intervention. There is no information provided by the authors on what the comparison condition received. These students presumably received the typical social studies and science curricula in their schools. There is some indication that students in the first two randomized cohorts may have received some intervention elements because participating teachers taught both intervention and comparison classes.
To ensure that the teachers used the procedures for teaching CSR effectively, initial and ongoing professional development, observation and feedback coaching sessions, peer teacher leader modeling and implementation problem solving, and coach check-ins were provided. The authors report that the cost per student for this project was $2600.
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