WWC review of this study

Impact of a Technology-Mediated Reading Intervention on Adolescents' Reading Comprehension [Comprehension Circuit Training vs. business as usual]

Fogarty, Melissa; Clemens, Nathan; Simmons, Deborah; Anderson, Leah; Davis, John; Smith, Ashley; Wang, Huan; Kwok, Oi-man; Simmons, Leslie E.; Oslund, Eric (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n2 p326-353. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135807

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    198
     Students
    , grades
    6-8

Reviewed: September 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Passage reading fluency-oral outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Oral Reading Fluency: EasyCBM passage

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
186 students

134.95

138.94

No

--
Passage reading fluency-silent outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
182 students

88.48

85.47

No

--
Reading Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
198 students

93.59

92.18

No

--

Gray Oral Reading Test 5th Edition

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
195 students

28.39

27.67

No

--

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT-4) reading comprehension subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
198 students

90.07

88.95

No

--
Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
186 students

94.34

95.22

No

--


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.


  • 10% English language learners

  • Female: 51%
    Male: 49%
    • 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

    Texas
  • Race
    Asian
    3%
    Black
    30%
    Native American
    1%
    Other or unknown
    40%
    White
    27%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    26%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    74%

Setting

The study took place in three schools in two school districts in Texas. One school enrolled students in grades 6-8 and the other two schools enrolled students in grades 7-8. Participating classes were reading intervention classes, with a total of 16 classes participating in the study. All participating classes at each school were taught by the same teacher, so there were a total of three teachers participating in the study.

Study sample

The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) intervention group (n=112) was 54% female, 31% White, 28% Black, 18% Hispanic, 18% multiple ethnicities, 4% Asian, and 1% American Indian. Forty percent of students were in grade 6, 30% were in grade 7, and 30% were in grade 8. Sixty-two percent were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, 8% were English learners, and 9% were eligible for special education services. The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the comparison group (n=116) was 48% female, 23% White, 31% Black, 34% Hispanic, 10% multiple ethnicities, 1% Asian, and 1% American Indian. Fifty-six percent of students were in grade 6, 24% were in grade 7, and 20% were in grade 8. Seventy-two percent were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch, 11% were English learners, and 8% were eligible for special education services.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Comprehension Circuit Training is a reading intervention that uses video modules on an electronic tablet to deliver services. Comprehension Circuit Training lessons focused on teaching students to monitor their own understanding through self-questioning and brief discussions with reading partners. Each lesson consisted of four components: opening comprehension circuit, warm-up station, reading core station, and knowledge flex station. Teachers facilitated the intervention by monitoring students, promoting text discussions, prompting and clarifying student responses, providing vocabulary instruction, and extending students' understanding. Instruction was organized in 10 levels. All students began at Level 1 and followed a standardized sequence of lessons. Each level consisted of four lessons, and each lesson was intended to last three days. Lessons were designed to be 50 minutes in duration and to be implemented three days per week. The entire Comprehension Circuit Training intervention was designed to last between 50 and 70 school days. Teachers selected specific implementation days.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was supplemental reading intervention classes. Teachers were told to maintain their typical instruction for comparison classes and were instructed not to use any of the practices or materials from the Comprehension Circuit Training intervention class. Researchers conducted random observations of comparison classes. Classroom activities observed included introducing new vocabulary words, utilizing graphic organizers, providing background knowledge, and reading. Teachers used a range of reading methods, including having students read individually or in pairs, reading together as a class, or with audio-recordings.

Support for implementation

Research staff provided professional development and support in small groups or individually. At initial meetings, teachers met individually with research staff to review implementation procedures. Teachers received iPads with instructional videos to view on their own time. Researchers held a follow-up meeting to review each component of the Comprehension Circuit Training. Teachers received a document describing their role as facilitators of each Comprehension Circuit Training component and received an implementation guide with a breakdown of each lesson, the instructional focus, student tasks, and teacher tasks. Research staff provided ongoing support to teachers as requested.

Reviewed: August 2017

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
186 students

93.83

95.22

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
198 students

93.59

92.18

No

--

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT): Comprehension subscale

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
195 students

28.39

27.67

No

--

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
198 students

90.07

88.95

No

--
English language arts achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Reading

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Full sample;
181 students

1500.54

1476.16

No

--
Literacy Achievement outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
206 students

87.95

85.31

No

--
Reading Fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Oral Reading Fluency

Comprehension Circuit Training (CCT) vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample;
186 students

132.91

138.94

No

--


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.


  • 10% English language learners

  • Female: 51%
    Male: 49%
    • 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

    Texas
  • Race
    Asian
    3%
    Black
    29%
    Native American
    1%
    Other or unknown
    14%
    White
    27%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    17%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    83%

Setting

The study took place in three schools in two school districts in Texas. One school enrolled students in grades 6 - 8 and the other two schools enrolled students in grades 7 -8. Participating classes were reading intervention classes, with a total of 16 classes participating in the study. All participating classes at each school were taught by the same teacher, so there were a total of three teachers participating in the study.

Study sample

The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the CCT intervention group (n=112) was 54% female, 31% white, 28% black, 18% Hispanic, 18% multiple ethnicities, 4% Asian and 1% American Indian. 40% of students were in 6th grade, 30% were in 7th grade, and 30% were in 8th grade. Sixty-two percent were eligible for free/reduced price lunch, 8% were English Learners, and 9% were eligible for special education services. The sample of students who contributed any data to the study for the comparison group (n=116) was 48% female, 23% white, 31% black, 34% Hispanic, 10% multiple ethnicities, 1% Asian and 1% American Indian. 56% of students were in 6th grade, 24% were in 7th grade, and 20% were in 8th grade. Seventy-two percent were eligible for free/reduced price lunch, 11% were English Learners, and 8% were eligible for special education services.

Intervention Group

CCT is a multicomponent reading intervention that uses video modules on an electronic tablet to deliver services. CCT lessons focused on teaching students to monitor their own understanding through self-questioning and brief discussions with reading partners. Each lesson consisted of four components: opening comprehension circuit, warm-up station, reading core station, and knowledge flex station. Teachers facilitated the intervention by monitoring students, promoting text discussions, prompting and clarifying student responses, providing vocabulary instruction, and extending students' understanding. Instruction was organized in 10 levels. All students began at Level 1 and followed a standardized sequence of lessons. Each level consisted of four lessons, and each lesson was intended to last three days. Lessons were designed to be 50 minutes in duration and to be implemented three days per week. The entire CCT intervention was designed to last from between 50 and 70 school days. Teachers selected specific implementation days.

Comparison Group

Teachers were told to maintain their typical instruction for comparison classes and were instructed not to use any of the practices or materials from the CCT intervention class. Researchers conducted random observations of comparison classes. Classroom activities observed included introducing new vocabulary words, utilizing graphic organizers, providing background knowledge, and reading. Teachers used a range of reading methods, including having students read individually or in pairs, reading together as a class, or with audio-recordings.

Support for implementation

Research staff provided professional development and support in either small groups or individually. At initial meetings, teachers met individually with research staff to review implementation procedures. Teachers received iPads with instructional videos to view on their own time. Researchers held a follow-up meeting to review each component of the CCT. Teachers received a document describing their role as facilitators of each CCT component and received an implementation guide with a breakdown of each lesson, the instructional focus, student tasks, and teacher tasks. Research staff provided ongoing support to teachers as requested.

 

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

loading
back to top