Gray, Susan H.; Ehri, Linnea C.; Locke, John L. (2018). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v31 n1 p75-98. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165457
Reviewed: September 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.24 |
81.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.41 |
85.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Read Words (word recognition) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
36.88 |
33.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.29 |
82.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Spell words (spelling) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.06 |
29.88 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Spelling of Sounds |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.82 |
84.75 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Picture Vocabulary |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
78.59 |
74.76 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.82 |
81.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Match definitions (vocabulary) |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.56 |
26.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Complete sentences |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.56 |
26.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Reading Vocabulary |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
82.35 |
81.18 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 44% | |
| Other or unknown | 56% |
| Hispanic | 56% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 44% |
The study took place in an adult learning center in the Mid-Atlantic.
The initial sample consisted of 46 learners. These learners were enrolled in or had recently completed a high school equivalency exam program, had basic English proficiency, and were between the ages of 18 and 31, among other criteria. The study included adult learners whose average age was 24, and who had not received a high school equivalency credential. On average, learners had completed schooling through grade 10. Fifty-six percent were bilingual, 56 percent were female, and 56 percent were Latino.
The SM-MPA tutoring program implemented five elements of evidence-based practice: using principles of effective morphological teaching, creating word sums, studying morphological relatives, teaching flexible syllable segmentation, and assigning primary syllable stress. The SM-MPA program focused on teaching 40 academic vocabulary words (derived from Latin and Greek word origins and included in a high school civics textbook) using a semantic graphic organizer to examine the meaning and sounds of the roots and components of each word. Each tutoring session took place over a two-hour period each week. The treatment group attended programming over a six-week period, with instruction taking place in Weeks 2 through 5 (eight hours of individual tutoring). Weeks 1 and 6 were dedicated to pre- and post-testing.
The semantic mapping with whole word study (SM-WWS) tutoring program used traditional vocabulary instruction methods to teach the same 40 words that were being taught to the treatment group. SM-WWS implemented three elements of evidence-based vocabulary instruction: information about definitions and sentence contexts, multiple exposure, and student engagement. The instruction focused on teaching whole words without analyzing words’ internal meaning or sound structures. The sessions also took place over a six-week period, with eight hours of individual tutoring.
The study does not provide specific information about support for implementation.
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