Greenberg, Daphne; Wise, Justin C.; Morris, Robin; Fredrick, Laura D.; Rodrigo, Victoria; Nanda, Alice O.; Pae, Hye K. (2011). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v4 n2 p101-117. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920171
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 (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample –Extensive Reading vs Business as usual;
|
11.67 |
15.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample –Extensive Reading vs Business as usual;
|
22.19 |
23.92 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Fluency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample –Extensive Reading vs Business as usual;
|
40.98 |
40.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 12% | |
| Black | 55% | |
| Other or unknown | 28% | |
| White | 6% |
| Hispanic | 28% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 72% |
The study took place in 23 adult literacy programs.
The initial sample consisted of 62 learners. There were 198 learners across all four studies. These learners could read between the 2nd and 6th grade levels. About 55 percent of learners were African American, 28 percent were Hispanic, 12 percent were Asian, and 6 percent were White. Sixty-seven percent were female. Fifty-six percent were English language learners, and the rest were native English speakers. Twenty-nine percent of learners repeated at least one grade of school; 15 percent attended special education classes while in school; and 49 percent reported graduating from high school.
Extensive Reading (ER) is extended reading practice using an extensive library of high interest/low vocabulary books. Learners engaged in sustained silent reading—an activity in which the teacher read aloud, and the learner followed along, with a discussion afterward about the books everyone was reading. During each class, time was allocated as follows: two blocks of silent sustained reading of 40 minutes each, 15 minutes of teacher read-aloud activities, 10 minutes of book discussion, and a 5-minute break.
The comparison group used a popular existing adult literacy curriculum. Teachers were advised to focus on teaching prime frequency words, W-H questions (who, what, when, where, why how), spelling, oral reading, journal writing, categorization of words, sentence structure, and mechanics of punctuation. Books were not used, but teachers could use excerpts based on learners’ interest. Instruction was provided for two hours per class, four times a week, for 12 and a half weeks. The curriculum did not allocate specific amounts of time for each topic. Learners attending all classes received 100 hours of instruction.
The teachers were hired specifically for the study. They had teaching backgrounds, but none had experience with the approaches in the SRA/McGraw Hill Direct Instruction Corrective Reading program. Each teacher received one week of training in adult literacy awareness and sensitivity, along with training on each approach. Once classes were in session, coaches observed each teacher five times during the year. Teachers received additional training if necessary.
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.
Rodrigo, Victoria; Greenberg, Daphne; Segal, Don. (2014). Changes in Reading Habits by Low Literate Adults through Extensive Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, v26 n1 p73-91.
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