Can a Mixed-Method Literacy Intervention Improve the Reading Achievement of Low-Performing Elementary School Students in an After-School Program? Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial of READ 180 Enterprise [READ 180 vs. business as usual]
Kim, James S.; Capotosto, Lauren; Hartry, Ardice; Fitzgerald, Robert (2011). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v33 n2 p183-201. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ927617
-
examining297Students, grades4-6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for READ 180®)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.42 |
103.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test 10th edition (SAT-10) - reading comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
635.92 |
625.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test Math (SAT-10): Reading Vocabulary subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
639.77 |
630.68 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 54%
Male: 46% -
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
Massachusetts
-
Race Black 54% Other or unknown 18% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a mid-sized urban school district in southeastern Massachusetts. Participating children attended four K-6 elementary schools in the district. Both intervention and comparison group students participated in after-school programming.
Study sample
The sample included students in grades 4 to 6, 95 percent of whom scored below proficiency on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in English language arts. At baseline, the sample was composed of 312 students, and of those, 54 percent were female and 46 percent male; 69 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; 54 percent were Black, 28 percent were White, 12 percent were Latinx, and 6 percent were classified as another race.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The study tested the READ 180® Enterprise intervention. Students in the intervention condition received the READ 180® structured reading program in an afterschool setting. Although the READ 180® program was implemented in an afterschool setting, the key program components were implemented, including the structuring of time to include whole-class instruction, as well as three rotations focused on (1) time using READ 180® software, (2) modeled and independent reading, and (3) small-group direct instruction. Because of the 60-minute session length (compared to the standard READ 180® 90-minute session length), the program developer devised a schedule in which, on any given day, students would rotate through two rather than three of the small-group centers. Student workbooks (“rBooks®”) were also provided in keeping with the program design, and the intended class size of 15 or fewer students was generally maintained. In year 1, READ 180® students received the program 4 days per week in 60-minute sessions for 23 weeks. In year 2, three of the four study schools changed the schedule so that the program was implemented for only 2 days per week in 90-minute sessions. The fourth school provided the program 4 days per week and in 90-minute sessions in year 2.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition attended Brockton Public Schools’ standard after-school program, which generally includes 40 minutes of homework, 1 hour of another structured learning activity such as math or reading, and the remainder of the time in physical exercise or recreation. Instructors could choose from 16 structured learning activities, including math games, reading, art projects, or science activities, or they could develop their own activities. In year 1, comparison group students attended the regular afterschool program for 4 days each week. In year 2, three of the four schools switched to a 2-day-per-week schedule for the regular afterschool program, while the fourth school retained the 4-day-per-week schedule.
Support for implementation
Scholastic, Inc., the publisher of READ 180®, provided professional development services to participating teachers. These services consisted of a full day of training prior to the launch of the READ 180® intervention, as well as a half-day of training after approximately 6 weeks of implementation. During the implementation period, a Scholastic trainer periodically met with all of the teachers implementing READ 180® to discuss challenges and identify solutions. All teachers also had access to an online professional development program, called RED, provided by Scholastic.
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).