Study: 89462

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2021

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

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.

Findings

Listening comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
CELF-5 metalinguistics, making inferences subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU; 78 students	9.52	9.15	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
CELF-5 metalinguistics, making inferences subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU; 60 students	8.91	9.25	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU; 78 students	91.84	86.65	Yes	21
Making Inferences Reading Test	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU; 78 students	17.93	17.72	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU; 60 students	91.74	86.98	Yes	19
Making Inferences Reading Test	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU; 60 students	18.60	17.50	No	--

Reading vocabulary outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Stanford Achievement Test Math (SAT-10): Reading Vocabulary subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU; 78 students	636.71	633.80	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Stanford Achievement Test Math (SAT-10): Reading Vocabulary subtest	Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader	2 Weeks	English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU; 60 students	639.66	630.46	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

77% English language learners
Female: 50%
Male: 49%
Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas

Race
Asian		1%
Black		3%
Native American		3%
Other or unknown		1%
White		92%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		96%
Not Hispanic or Latino		4%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in an urban public charter school in Texas. The school served students in grades 6 through 9.

Study sample

The study sample comprised 6th- and 7th-grade students who were below-average readers. The average age was 12.6 years. Within the analytic sample (n=78), 96 percent of students were Hispanic, and 77 percent had limited English proficiency (LEP). Students were identified as LEP if they had a score on a test approved by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) indicating LEP. Ninety-seven percent of the students in the analytic sample received free or reduced-price lunch, and 11.5 percent received special education services. Across the sample, 3 percent of students were Black, 3 percent were American Indian, 1 percent were Asian, and 92 percent were White.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The inference instruction intervention was delivered over a period of 14 weeks to small groups of three to six students. Each small group participated in 24, 40-minute sessions each delivered 2 to 3 times per week. Students received reading instruction from the study’s lead author, or two other tutors. The text selected for the inference instruction was “Wonder” (Palacio, 2012), which has a Lexile® level of 790L. At the start of each of the first 10 intervention sessions, students received explicit instruction in generating a specific type of inference such as noticing gaps and/or lack of coherence in text, identifying clue words or phrases, and integrating information from knowledge with information in text. Tutors modeled generating each type of inference covered during the session while reading a passage from Wonder. Tutors then engaged students in guided practice using the same passage or a subsequent passage followed by students reading Wonder independently with a partner or in a small group for the remainder of the session. For the first 10 sessions, students read aloud whereas for the remaining 14 sessions they were instructed to read at least every other page silently.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group participated in business-as-usual instruction provided by the school. This consisted of 90 minutes of work with Accelerated Reader 2 to 3 times per week. Students read books that they selected and took quizzes that consisted of comprehension questions to demonstrate their comprehension of what they read.

Support for implementation

Students in the intervention group received reading instruction from the study’s lead author (a doctoral candidate) and two additional tutors (both doctoral students) each with at least five years’ experience teaching students. The lead author developed the intervention materials and protocols, and provided four hours of training to the tutors prior to the start of the study.

The Effects of Inference Instruction on the Reading Comprehension of English Learners with Reading Comprehension Difficulties [Inference instruction intervention vs. business as usual]