Study: 90661

Reading Apprenticeship® Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Review Details

Reviewed: September 2022

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Reading Apprenticeship® Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Using:

Rating:

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.

Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Reading Apprenticeship®.

Findings

Academic achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
GPA: Core subjects (ELA, math, science, and social studies)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	1.54	1.47	Yes	3
Show Supplemental Findings
GPA: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	1.49	1.35	Yes	4
GPA: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	1.65	1.56	Yes	3
GPA: English language arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	1.62	1.54	No	--
GPA: English language arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	1.72	1.67	No	--
GPA: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	1.63	1.57	No	--
GPA: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	1.49	1.44	No	--
GPA: Core subjects (ELA, math, science, and social studies)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	1.55	1.52	No	--
GPA: Math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	1.44	1.43	No	--
GPA: Math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	1.37	1.40	No	--

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State standardized tests: English language arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,053 students	0.13	-0.02	Yes	6
Show Supplemental Findings
State standardized tests: English language arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,140 students	0.00	-0.03	No	--

General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State standardized tests: Math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,263 students	0.09	0.04	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State standardized tests: Math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,226 students	-0.04	-0.01	No	--

General science achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State standardized tests: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,151 students	0.05	-0.10	Yes	4
Show Supplemental Findings
State standardized tests: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,269 students	0.06	0.07	No	--

General social studies achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
State standardized tests: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 447 students	0.10	-0.06	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
State standardized tests: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Tested student sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 1,089 students	0.05	-0.01	No	--

Progressing in school (secondary school) outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Credits earned: Core subjects (ELA, math, science, and social studies)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	20.50	19.90	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Credits earned: English Language Arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	18.80	18.10	No	--
Credits earned: math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	21.90	20.70	Yes	3
Credits earned: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	22.00	21.20	No	--
Credits earned: English Language Arts (ELA)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	40.20	39.50	No	--
Credits earned: Science	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	45.80	44.60	No	--
Credits earned: Core subjects (ELA, math, science, and social studies)	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	42.60	42.10	No	--
Credits earned: math	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	43.90	43.50	No	--
Credits earned: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,563 students	20.60	20.60	No	--
Credits earned: Social studies	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,212 students	42.30	42.50	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,255 students	90.00	88.80	Yes	5

School Attendance outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Attendance rate	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,528 students	92.90	92.30	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Attendance rate	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,160 students	90.50	90.20	No	--

Student Discipline outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Ever suspended	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,346 students	30.80	32.40	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Ever suspended	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,016 students	31.70	35.90	Yes	4

Vocabulary outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest	Reading Apprenticeship® vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample (combined cohort 1 and 2); 2,255 students	93.30	93.30	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.

46% English language learners
Female: 50%
Male: 50%
Urban

Race
Black		47%
Other or unknown		37%
White		17%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		30%
Not Hispanic or Latino		70%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		67%
No FRPL		33%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted in 10 school districts in mid-size and large cities in four states in the United States during the 2005–06 and 2006–07 school years. Seventeen schools participated in a study of the Reading Apprenticeship program, which is the focus of this review.

Study sample

The researchers randomly assigned 1,929 students reading two to five years below grade level to the Reading Apprenticeship® intervention group and 1,432 to the comparison group. A total of 2,563 students in grade 9 at the time of random assignment were included in the study in 17 schools. Approximately 47% of the students were Black, 17% were White, and 37% did not report race. Thirty percent were Hispanic or Latino and 70% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino. About half (50%) were male and 46% were English language learners. Two-thirds (67%) were eligible for free or reduced price-lunch.

Intervention Group

Reading Apprenticeship® is a literacy intervention developed for high school students whose reading skills are below grade level. The program aims to help students adopt strategies and routines used by proficient readers, improve their comprehension skills, motivate them to read more, and enjoy reading. Reading Apprenticeship® was offered alongside students’ regular English language arts classes as a supplemental, year-long course, which replaced a grade-9 elective. The program was scheduled for a minimum of 225 minutes of instruction per week, with either a 45-minute class every day or a 75–90-minute class every other day, and was offered in class sizes of about 12–15 students.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition were not offered the Reading Apprenticeship® elective course. Rather, they participated in another elective class instead. Like the intervention group, students in the comparison group attended regular English language arts classes.

Support for implementation

An experienced, full-time English language arts or social studies teacher taught the Reading Apprenticeship® elective in each school. These teachers participated in a 5-day summer training before the start of the school year and two 2-day booster trainings and three 3-day on-site coaching visits during the school year. Teachers also had access to an online listserv that was set up for the project. Of 17 teachers recruited to administer the program, three teachers were replaced after the first year of the study. Teachers who were new to the study during the second year participated in training through the Reading Apprenticeship Institute. Prior to the start of the second year, all teachers participated in a 3-day summer training. During the second year, teachers received the same booster trainings and on-site coaching visits as during the first year.

Additional Sources

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

Corrin, William; Somers, Marie-Andree; Kemple, James J.; Nelson, Elizabeth; Sepanik, Susan. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Findings from the Second Year of Implementation. NCEE 2009-4036. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Kemple, James J.; Corrin, William; Nelson, Elizabeth; Salinger, Terry; Herrmann Suzannah; Drummond, Kathryn. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early Impact and Implementation Findings. NCEE 2008-4015. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study Final Report: The Impact of Supplemental Literacy Courses for Struggling Ninth-Grade Readers. NCEE 2010-4021