Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2015). Jackson, WY: PRES Associates, 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Form E - Reading |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
263.87 |
265.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Form E - Vocabulary |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
263.77 |
268.52 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Iowa Form E - Reading |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Asian, Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, Not specified; Hispanic or Latino (race/ethnicity="Non-White");
|
249.32 |
253.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Form E - Vocabulary |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
below average baseline reading/writing levels;
|
240.65 |
245.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Form E Overall ELA |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
267.31 |
265.63 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Iowa Form E - Skill: Mechanics |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
64.29 |
59.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Form E - Skill: Sentence Structure |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
59.30 |
54.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Form E- Skill: Usage & Grammar |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grade 9;
|
52.98 |
50.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Iowa Form E Overall ELA |
Prentice Hall/Pearson Literature© (2007-15) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Asian, Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, Not specified; Hispanic or Latino (race/ethnicity="Non-White");
|
252.13 |
252.40 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 6% | |
| Native American | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 76% |
| Hispanic | 12% |
The study took place in five public high schools located in urban and suburban areas in California, Illinois, Michigan, and Washington states. The size of the schools range from medium (below 1,000) to large (over 2,000). The study was implemented in 48 ninth-grade classrooms (25 intervention, 23 comparison) taught by 19 teachers.
The study used a cluster randomized controlled trial design. Within each school, teachers were randomly assigned to intervention or comparison groups. To be eligible to participate in the study, schools had to meet the following criteria: (1) school staff had to be willing to participate in the study and support implementation of the intervention, (2) schools were also required to have no other major English/language arts initiatives taking place, and (3) schools had to have low student mobility rates (less than 20% student attrition during a school year). During fall 2014, the study was implemented in 48 classrooms (25 intervention, 23 comparison) taught by 19 teachers. The analysis sample included 1,004 ninth-grade students: 530 students were in the Pearson Literature group, and 474 students were in the comparison group. Across the sample, there were 75.8% White students, 12.1% Hispanic students, 6.3% African-American students, and the remaining students were from other racial or ethnic groups. Other subpopulation breakdowns included: 3.7% special education status, 7.9% limited English proficiency, 21.3% free or reduced-price lunch, and reading levels ranged from low (28.1%) to mid-range (35.6%) to high (36.3%). For the 19 teachers in the analysis sample, 85% were female and 95% were White; 74% held a Master’s degree, 21% held a Bachelor’s degree, and 5% held a Ph.D. On average, the teachers had 5 years of experience.
Intervention teachers implemented the Pearson Literature© (2015) curriculum in their English/language arts classrooms. The Pearson Literature (2015) program consisted of five units with four topics per unit. The topics include (1) setting expectations, (2) reading complex texts while providing support and guidance, (3) removing the level of support to “provide a more authentic reading environment for students,” and (4) provide students independence to respond to a range of works. Occasionally, the teachers had to incorporate other resources to meet district requirements.
Comparison teachers were allowed to design their own curriculum or supplement their schools’ available curriculum as they saw fit, following their schools’ policies. They were also encouraged to use teacher- and district-created resources available online to all teachers. In general, the comparison curriculum consisted of 12 chapters with the following features: (1) reading skills and strategies, (2) making meanings (critical thinking about texts), (3) writer’s notebook (writing notes about text), and (4) grammar handbook (practicing grammar skills).
At the beginning of the 2014–15 school year, teachers were provided with about 6 hours of training by a professional trainer in the use of the Pearson Literature© curriculum materials. The training consisted of an overview of all program components, including the technology component, Pearson Realize. In addition, they were provided with detailed implementation guidelines. Researchers from Pearson used a classroom observation form to measure how faithfully they were following the program. Additional trainings were held in November and January of the same school year to cover more specific details on upcoming units.
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