Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Examining the Efficacy of Targeted Component Interventions on Language and Literacy for Third and Fourth Graders Who Are at Risk of Comprehension Difficulties [Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. business as usual]
Connor, Carol McDonald; Phillips, Beth M.; Kim, Young-Suk Grace; Lonigan, Christopher J.; Kaschak, Michael P.; Crowe, Elizabeth; Dombek, Jennifer; Al Otaiba, Stephanie (2018). Scientific Studies of Reading, v22 n6 p462-484. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1188481
-
examining204Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Enacted Reading Comprehension)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Narrative Language Skills (TNL) |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
30.70 |
31.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
24.48 |
25.17 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
28.38 |
28.08 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
66.99 |
65.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
51.80 |
51.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Enacted Reading Comprehension vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Enacted Reading Comprehension (Enacted RC) intervention vs. business-as-usual comparison group (4th grade);
|
32.28 |
32.89 |
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.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race Black 39% Other or unknown 8% White 53%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 115 fourth-grade classrooms in 31 schools in Florida. Pre- and post-test assessments were administered to students in a quiet place in their school and group-administered assessments were conducted in the students’ classroom.
Study sample
At participating schools, at least 40 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Of the fourth-grade participants, 52 percent were female. Of the third- and fourth-grade participants, 39 percent were African American, 53 percent were White, and 8% percent were multiracial or other race/ethnicity categories not specified in the study. (Note: The student race/ethnicity data were provided for the entire sample, which included both third- and fourth-grade students. This review focuses on only the fourth-grade students in two of three treatment conditions – i.e., the Enacted Reading Comprehension [Enacted RC] intervention group and the business-as-usual comparison group – however, disaggregated student characteristics data were not provided.) On average, the fourth graders were 9.8 years old (SD = 0.50) at the time of initial screening.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The four interventions implemented in this study, each a component of Comprehension Tools for Teachers (CTT), provided tier 2 instruction to small groups of four or five students. Each intervention was provided for 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 10-12 weeks. This review focuses on the Enacted RC intervention, which applied the principles of embodied cognition (i.e., the idea that understanding follows the construction of sensorimotor stimulations) to improve understandings of the texts. Overall, the intervention aimed to systematically build students’ understandings of abstract concepts by starting with concrete simulation strategies (e.g., moving hands together to illustrate an earthquake) and moving to more abstract concepts (e.g., alternately circling each hand to illustrate opposing sides of an argument in persuasive/argumentative texts). The intervention culminated with the students reading the novel, "A Single Shard." The characters in the book experience internal conflicts and moral dilemmas, which could be portrayed with gestures. More specifically, the intervention was composed of three phases of lessons. The first phase, which lasted about three weeks, was the most concrete. During this phase, the students read books about earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados. During the second phase, which lasted about two weeks, the students read and wrote persuasive texts focusing on opposing opinions. During the third phase, which lasted about five weeks, the students read "A Single Shard" both during lessons and at home. On average, students attended 36 of 40 lessons.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Comparison group students participated in their regular classroom instruction. The instruction focused on reading comprehension, strategies, discussions about texts, building vocabulary in context, writing, and decoding/encoding. The researchers conducted brief observations of classrooms as well as discussions and surveys with teachers and concluded that generally, there was good quality instruction that followed the districts’ core literacy curricula. The core literacy curricula adopted by the districts included "Treasures," "Wonders," "Open Court Imagine," and "Journeys."
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented by instructional assistants (IAs), who were supervised by intervention coordinators. The intervention coordinator's role was specific to the intervention. In other words, the IAs who implemented the Enacted RC intervention were supervised by Enacted RC intervention coordinators. The intervention coordinators provided 6 hours of initial professional development specific to the Enacted RC intervention followed by 3 hours of booster professional development. The coordinators also maintained discussion boards where IAs could post questions and submit responses to weekly implementation quizzes. Additionally, all IAs were trained to use a token economy system for behavioral management. Within the first few weeks of the study, coordinators observed each IA and provided immediate feedback. Then, coordinators monitored the IAs’ adherence to scripted lesson plans and quality of implementation. All intervention sessions were recorded; each week, to rate the fidelity of implementation as well as provide feedback and support, one session per IA was reviewed.
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).