
A longitudinal randomized trial of a sustained content literacy intervention from first to second grade: Transfer effects on students’ reading comprehension outcomes
Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Relyea, J. E., Gilbert, J. B., Scherer, E., Fitzgerald, J., Mosher, D., & McIntyre, S. (2022). Journal of Educational Psychology. Advanced online. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000751.
-
examining2,275Students, grades1-2
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Model of Reading Engagement (MORE))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Total Score |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Science Content Reading Comprehension (researcher developed) |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Comprehension Subtest |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Science Vocabulary Knowledge Depth (Kim et al 2021) Untaught words |
Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
24% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
South
-
Race Asian 8% Black 36% Other or unknown 38% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 35% Not Hispanic or Latino 65% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 41% No FRPL 59%
Study Details
Setting
Children in first grade classrooms from 30 elementary schools located in the southeastern United States participated in this study. All schools were drawn from a single urban school district.
Study sample
Students were 51 percent male and 36 percent Black. Over half (61%) spoke English at home as their primary language, and 41 percent were categorized as low socioeconomic status.
Intervention Group
First-grade students were organized into four groups based on teachers' assessments of the students' reading level. Students then chose five reader-level matched books that were related to science (i.e., animal survival) and social studies themes (i.e., explorers). These books were designed to be just difficult enough to support active processing as students drew upon their knowledge to read independently at home. Over a period of 10 weeks, second-grade students received 45 lessons that focused on a single theme, along with an organizing question.
Comparison Group
The first grade curriculum was described as a balanced literacy program that included word study, guided reading and writing activities in small groups, teacher-directed lessons, and independent reading. The school district used Expeditionary Learning for the second grade curriculum. This is a content-based literacy curriculum designed to build content knowledge and language and literacy skills.
Support for implementation
Teachers participated in 2 hours of professional development and received on-going support during the implementation of the intervention. Teachers also had access to school-based literacy facilitators who could answer questions about the program.
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).