White, Thomas G.; Kim, James S.; Kingston, Helen Chen; Foster, Lisa (2014). Reading Research Quarterly, v49 n1 p5-30. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1027284
Reviewed: April 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills- Reading Comprehension Subtest |
READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
READS (teacher lessons and summer books) and Comparison Group;
|
184.01 |
184.95 |
No |
-- | |
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills- Reading Comprehension Subtest |
READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
READS (teacher lessons and summer books) plus teacher phone calls and Comparison Group;
|
184.55 |
184.95 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 51% | |
| Other or unknown | 49% |
| Hispanic | 30% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 70% |
This study was conducted with third grade students from 19 elementary schools in a midsized urban school district in North Carolina.
The students in the sample were 51 percent Black and 30 percent Hispanic. Almost three fourths (72%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Between one fourth and one third (29%) were identified as having limited English proficiency. Baseline reading comprehension was below the national norm.
The intervention examined in this study is READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer), a voluntary summer reading program. In this intervention, books that are matched to students' reading levels and interests are provided to students over the summer. Teachers implemented scaffolding lessons at the end of the school year just prior to the summer. Half of the schools were randomly assigned to implement fluency practice and a multiple-strategy routine in their scaffolding lessons. In the multiple-strategy routine, teachers instructed students to use multiple comprehension strategies (making connections, predicting, asking questions, rereading) with both narrative and informational texts. The other half of the schools implemented a content-based prediction routine but no fluency practice. For narrative texts, the content-based prediction routine was based on a story impression activity using keywords to help students make a story guess before reading. During reading, the teacher asked literal and inferential text-based questions. After reading, the students compared their story guesses with the actual story. For informational texts, the content-based prediction routine was based on a K–W–L activity (i.e., the teacher asks students what they Know about a topic, what they Want to know, and what they Learned). There were no statistically significant differences between these groups so they were combined for the remaining analyses. All intervention students received one book each week of the summer over a 10-week period. Two of the books were lesson books and eight were matched books. Postcards were also sent to prompt the students to use the multiple comprehension strategies or content-based predictions. Parents were encouraged to support their students' reading during the summer; materials were sent to students and parents throughout the summer break. Students assigned to the enhanced intervention condition received the same basic intervention described above with the addition of up to three telephone calls from the teacher during the summer, where the student was prompted to provide an oral recall of a summer book.
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction and summer reading activities. Comparison group teachers participated in a professional development seminar on classroom management. At the end of the session, they were instructed to conduct business as-usual reading lessons on the days when the treatment teachers were conducting multiple-strategy or content-based comprehension lessons. Students in the comparison condition did not receive matched books during the summer.
Teachers attended a 2-hour training session led by veteran teachers, according to the type of lessons they were to implement (multiple strategy or content-based prediction), and they received a lesson plan for each of the six lessons and materials. In the spring prior to the summer intervention, students completed a reading preference survey to indicate their interest in reading books from 18 categories (e.g., adventure, biography, historical fiction, science, sports). A computer algorithm was used to match books to each student based on the student’s interests and reading level.
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