Kim, H. Y., Hsin, L. B., & Snow, C. E. (2018). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
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 Word Generation.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Global Integrated Scenario-based Assessments (GISA) |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
ELs year 2;
|
938.94 |
937.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Global Integrated Scenario-based Assessments (GISA) |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Non-EL year 2;
|
1007.42 |
1005.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Global Integrated Scenario-based Assessments (GISA) |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Non EL year 1;
|
999.43 |
1000.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Core Academic Language Skills-Instrument |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
ELs year 2;
|
0.11 |
-0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Core Academic Language Skills-Instrument |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Non-EL year 2;
|
1.12 |
1.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Core Academic Language Skills-Instrument |
Word Generation vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Non EL year 1;
|
1.04 |
1.07 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study sample included nine K–8 and one elementary–middle school pair, which was considered to be a single school. Of the 10 schools, the analysis that meets WWC standards included 8. The 10 schools were in three school districts located in the northeast region of the United States. One district was located in a city, another in a suburban community, and the last in a small town. Nine of the schools served students in grades K–8, and the other one was an elementary–middle school pair, in which the elementary school was a feeder school for the middle school.
The authors described two of the three districts in the study as serving an ethnically diverse and low-income population and the third district as serving a primarily white and low- to middle-income population. The sample includes students in grades 4–7. The schools in the study included between 11% to 14% English learners. The 241 students that contributed outcomes to the findings in Table 4 were all English learners.
Students in this study received the following Word Generation programs. Students in 4th and 5th grades received WordGen Elementary (12 two-week units with daily 40- to 50-minute lessons). Students in 6th and 7th grades received SciGen and SoGen (six one-week units with daily 45-minute lessons for each SciGen and SoGen). Students in 6th and 7th grade also received 12 one-week units with daily 20-minute lessons of WordGen Weekly. This implementation differs from the developer’s current description of WordGen Weekly, which suggests using 24 units across a school year. Students in grades 5–7 when outcomes were measured who were present in the same school during the previous school year received two years of the intervention (63% of students received two years of the intervention). Students in grades 5–7 who enrolled in the schools only during the year when outcomes were measured and all grade 4 students received just one year of the intervention (37% of students received one year of the intervention).
Students in the comparison schools received instruction to improve vocabulary development through a wide range of programs and strategies, but the study did not collect detailed information on them.
Teachers in the intervention group were invited to a three-day summer institute at which they learned about the Word Generation curriculum and underlying principles. Not all teachers could attend the summer training, but no information is provided on what percentage attended. The training was repeated before the start of Year 2. Word Generation coaches supported implementation by responding to teacher queries, modelling lessons, and organizing school learning groups. However, the study reported that teachers received varying amounts of coaching.
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.
Jones, Stephanie M.; LaRusso, Maria; Kim, James; Yeon Kim, Ha; Selman, Robert; Uccelli, Paola; Barnes, Sophie P.; Donovan, Suzanne; Snow, Catherine. (2019). Experimental Effects of Word Generation on Vocabulary, Academic Language, Perspective Taking, and Reading Comprehension in High-Poverty Schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v12 n3 p448-483.
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