Wijekumar, Kausalai; Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Lei, Puiwa (2017). Journal of Educational Psychology, v109 n6 p741-760. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1149967
Reviewed: March 2020
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 Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Short Comparison Text: Main Idea Test, Number of Issues |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Short Comparison Text: Main Idea Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Long Comparison Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Long Comparison Text: Number of Issues Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Problem/Solution Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Short Comparison Text: Number of Issues Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Short Comparison Text: Competence Test |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study included seventh-grade classrooms from 25 rural and suburban middle schools across two states in the United States.
The number of students in the analytic sample differs by outcome, ranging from 1,716 to 1,868 students. Across the 25 study schools, 42% of the student population was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 8% were racial/ethnic minorities. The analytic sample was about 48% female, and 53% were from rural school districts. The remainder were from suburban school districts.
Students in the intervention group received the ITSS program over the course of the 2010–11 school year. ITSS was used in intervention classrooms for 30 to 45 minutes a week over 6 to 7 months, which was lower than the developer-recommended dosage, as a partial substitute for the regular language arts curriculum.
Students in comparison classrooms received the typical language arts curriculum, which was the same curriculum used by the intervention group classrooms within the same school except for the partial substitution of ITSS. Total daily and weekly amounts of language arts instruction were the same for both intervention and comparison classrooms.
Teachers in the intervention group received 3 hours of training at the beginning of the academic year. Teacher aides were hired at each school to assist with ITSS implementation at the computer lab.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Wijekumar, Kausalai; Lei, Puiwa. (2018). Comparative Signaling Generated for Expository Texts by 4th-8th Graders: Variations by Text Structure Strategy Instruction, Comprehension Skill, and Signal Word. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v31 n9 p1937-1968.
Reviewed: February 2019
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main idea: competence (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Long comparison text: competence (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Problem and solution text: competence (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Comprehension subtest |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Short comparison text: signaling test (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
14.86 |
13.17 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Short comparison text: competence (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Main idea: no. of issues (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short comparison text: top-level structure (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Long comparison text: top-level structure (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Short comparison text: no. of issues (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Long comparison text: no. of issues (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Problem and solution text: top-level structure (researcher designed) |
Intelligent Tutoring for Structure Strategy (ITSS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in grade 7 language arts classrooms in 25 rural and suburban schools in two Northeastern states (p, 748)
Across the 25 study schools, 42% of student population was eligible for free and/or reduced price lunch, and 8% were racial/ethnic minorities. Females made up about 48% of the analytic sample, and 53% of the sample came from rural districts. (p. 748)
Intelligent Tutoring System for the Text Structure Strategy (ITSS) ITSS is a web-based intelligent tutoring intervention that focuses on cognitive and metacognitive skills needed for understanding the meaning of texts. This metacognitive approach can be used prior to, during and after reading. It uses a text structure-based method of instruction to improve reading comprehension. The text structure strategy helps readers focus on the text organization and structure their reading and understanding accordingly. It includes activities such as identification of the organization of texts, writing main ideas based on the most important text elements, supporting creation of a "strategic cognitive structure" (p. 744) to process new learning, and supporting students' own monitoring of their comprehension and recall. During the study period, teachers in the intervention group used the ITSS software for 30–45 minutes each week over a 6-7 month period as a partial substitute for the language arts period. (pp. 744, 748-749)
Teachers in comparison group delivered the school's language arts curriculum. (p. 748)
Intervention teachers received three hours of training at the beginning of academic year. Teacher aids were hired at each school to help with ITSS implementation issues at the computer lab. (p. 749)
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