Robinson, Shawn Anthony (2018). Journal of Correctional Education, v69 n1 p60-72. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185211
Reviewed: January 2021
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 Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Spelling of Sounds |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Spelling Non-Real Words);
|
10.01 |
7.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Letter-word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Reading Real Words);
|
49.62 |
45.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Reading Non-Real Words);
|
12.73 |
10.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Spelling Real Words);
|
28.40 |
27.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson III reading fluency |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (Fluency);
|
40.29 |
36.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in six correctional institutions in the Midwest.
The initial sample consisted of 44 learners. These learners attended a school program within the participating correctional facilities with at least six months remaining until their release and scored at a fifth grade or lower reading level. The average age of learners in the treatment group was 42.1, and the average age of those in the comparison group was 36.5. No percentages on race or ethnicity were given, but different learners identified as Black, Asian, Hispanic, or White.
The program was a modification of the Orton-Gillingham curriculum known as Pure and Complete Phonics (PCP). PCP is an instructional technique that uses direct, explicit, and multisensory instruction on reading. PCP is scripted and sequenced. It employs specific references and formats to use the 26 alphabet letters and 103 phonemes or phonemic units to identify spelling and reading words. Learners received instruction using the PCP curriculum Monday through Friday for one hour each day for 15 weeks.
The comparison group continued to receive instruction based on their institution’s existing reading curriculum for one hour per day (Monday through Friday) for 15 weeks. The existing curriculum is not named or described.
The study author led a two-day training workshop for teachers before the study began. The training included an overview of the PCP curriculum, instruction on the PCP formats, and opportunities to practice the PCP approach with each other. The training emphasized the curriculum’s instructional approach, including the importance of following the curriculum script. The trainer modeled each of the steps in the scripts and had teachers practice teaching each other. All teachers had an Adult Basic Education certification and had, on average, 17 years of teaching experience.
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