WWC review of this study

Effects of a Structured Decoding Curriculum on Adult Literacy Learners' Reading Development [K-3 curriculum adapted for adult learners]

Alamprese, Judith A.; MacArthur, Charles A.; Price, Cristofer; Knight, Deborah (2011). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v4 n2 p154-172. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920176

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    250
     Students
    , grade
    PS

Reviewed: January 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Wide Range Achievement Test- Third Edition (WRAT-3): Spelling subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
177 students

1.43

0.47

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
182 students

3.89

2.54

No

--

Developmental Spelling Test

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
146 students

0.24

0.46

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
171 students

-1.51

-0.09

No

--

Wide Range Achievement Test-Revision 3 (WRAT-3): reading subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
178 students

2.63

4.06

No

--

Developmental Spelling Test

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
212 students

0.24

0.78

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
241 students

3.89

5.49

No

--

Letter-Sound Survey

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
250 students

0.60

1.74

No

--

Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Letter-Word Identification

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
181 students

-2.18

2.15

No

--

Wide Range Achievement Test-Revision 3 (WRAT-3): reading subtest

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
229 students

2.63

5.45

No

--

Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Letter-Word Identification

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
242 students

-2.18

2.44

No

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

Nelson comprehension test

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
176 students

1.21

2.86

No

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

Passage Reading Test

Adult Education vs. Business as usual

2 Months

Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
169 students

-1.31

2.09

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.


  • 35% English language learners

  • Female: 66%
    Male: 34%
  • Race
    Asian
    15%
    Black
    20%
    Other or unknown
    30%
    White
    35%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    24%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    76%

Setting

The study took place in 23 adult literacy programs located in 12 states. These programs included 71 reading classes and 34 instructors.

Study sample

The initial sample consisted of 349 learners. These learners attended an adult literacy program that provided class-based instruction to English-speaking adults at the intermediate level. Sixty-six percent of learners were female. The race/ethnicity distribution of learners was 35 percent White, 24 percent Hispanic, 20 percent Black, 15 percent Asian, and 6 percent in an unspecified other category. Thirty-five percent were born and educated outside of the United States. Sixty-three percent had low incomes based on the poverty threshold of $12,000 annual salary. Thirty-one percent were identified as having a learning disability.

Intervention Group

The treatment curriculum provided explicit instruction on reading and spelling. The curriculum was adapted for adult learners from a structured curriculum, originally designed for K–3 students, that focused on decoding and spelling. Additional information about the curricula was not provided. Classes lasted approximately 30 weeks and met one to five days per week.

Comparison Group

There were two comparison conditions. In both groups, classes lasted approximately 30 weeks and met one to five days per week. The first group continued using the existing reading instruction. These classes did not use a published scope and sequence. Teachers typically included some decoding in their instruction, but placed more emphasis on spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension. The second comparison group used a curriculum called Making Sense of Decoding and Spelling, which was designed specifically for adult learners. Teachers in this condition used the study curriculum to teach decoding and spelling. The curriculum includes a review of alphabetic decoding skills and principles and teaches a strategy for decoding multisyllabic words to be used throughout the curriculum. Instruction was primarily delivered to the whole group in scripted lessons, but lessons include paired- and individual-learner reading practice designed to improve reading speed. Each lesson includes progress monitoring assessments. Instructors were given lesson plans with examples and presentation materials.

Support for implementation

The researchers measured attendance and hours of instruction for each of the study groups. The mean number of hours of instruction was approximately 65 among those using a K–3 curriculum adapted for adult learners, 60 among those using existing reading instruction, and 50 among those using the MSDS curriculum. Attendance rates were 57 percent, 51, and 55 percent, respectively. The researchers also looked at whether MSDS was implemented as intended by calculating the percentage of lessons taught, the number of hours of study curriculum offered to learners, and the level of fidelity to the scripted lessons based on classroom observations. The median percentage of lessons taught was 92 percent; the mean total hours of study curriculum was 27; and the mean fidelity scores were 2.18 on a scale of 0 to 3 on the classroom observation form, where a score of 3 means all segments were taught as scripted.

 

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