Jones, Curtis (2018). School Community Journal, v28 n2 p247-264. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201942
Reviewed: September 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Achievement |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 78% | |
| Other or unknown | 22% |
| Hispanic | 16% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 84% |
This study was conducted with students in kindergarten, first and second grade from six elementary schools in the Milwaukee Public School district.
The majority of the participating students were Black (78%) with the remaining reporting as Hispanic (16%) and White or Asian (6%). More than half the students were female (54%), and most (95%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
The SPARK program leverages community, family, and school resources to address literacy deficits among students in kindergarten and first and second grade. SPARK focuses both on developing literacy skills and on building a more conducive environment for students to continue their literacy development after their participation in SPARK. The SPARK program is implemented through a family–school–community partnership, which uses in-school tutoring, afterschool enrichment, and family engagement. One-on-one tutoring is planned and administered by college students and community members, who pull students out of non-core classes during the school day for 30 minutes up to three times per week. Each tutoring session includes five research-based literacy activities. The afterschool program leverages Boys & Girls Clubs programming to offer academic enrichment activities to strengthen social and emotional learning and to make connections between literacy and everyday experiences. The family engagement component is designed to bridge the divide between school and home by translating literacy concepts, educating families about a variety of literacy activities, and validating the literacy practices already happening in the home.
Students in the comparison condition received instruction as usual.
At each site, a program manager oversees and supports the tutors and coordinates the collaboration between the SPARK team and school staff. Tutors receive training at the beginning of the school year, including how to implement lessons, how to develop lesson plans based on a standardized lesson plan template, and how to administer and use literacy assessments. Other more specialized training opportunities are provided at the site level throughout the year as needed. Tutors are formally and informally observed and supported while they provide tutoring. SPARK collaborates with each school by encouraging teachers to participate in SPARK activities, observing lessons, and leveraging SPARK to meet the needs of students.
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