WWC review of this study

Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The Targeted Reading Intervention.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M., & Amendum, S. (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1175–1187. doi: 10.1037/a0032143 Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054424

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    15
     Schools
    , grades
    K-1
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: June 2017

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Letter Word Identification

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers;
247 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
19
More Outcomes

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Spelling of Sounds

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers;
248 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
15

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Word Attack

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers;
249 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
15
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Passage Comprehension

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers;
250 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
18
More Outcomes

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPTV-III)

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers;
247 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Passage Comprehension

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Struggling readers in Grade 1;
128 students

462.15

455.74

No

 
 
16

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 43%
    Male: 57%
  • Race
    Not specified
    55%
    White
    45%

  • Rural
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas

Setting

The study was conducted in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in public schools in poor rural counties in Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Texas.

Study sample

Sixteen rural schools were assigned to matched pairs based on district, school size, school participation in Reading First, and the percentages of students who were minorities and receiving free or reduced-price lunch. One school in each pair was randomly selected for the intervention. One intervention school later left the study due to problems with Internet connectivity. All kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in the remaining 15 schools were included in the study. Teachers identified struggling readers using state assessment data, classroom observation information, and input from the TRI literacy coach. Within each classroom, five struggling readers were randomly selected for the study, for a total of 385 students (220 in the intervention group and 165 in the comparison group). The analytic sample included 247–250 students (158–160 in the intervention group and 87–90 in the comparison group, depending on study outcome) across 15 schools (seven intervention and eight comparison). Over half of the sample was male (63% in the intervention group and 54% in the comparison), and less than half were White (49% in the intervention group and 39% in the comparison group).

Intervention Group

Teachers in TRI schools attended a 3-day summer workshop on TRI strategies. During the school year, TRI teachers received biweekly observation and feedback from TRI literacy coaches, and met biweekly with other TRI teachers and their TRI literacy coach to reinforce strategies and problem solve. TRI teachers also participated in workshops every few months to obtain support with understanding of the TRI process, models, and strategies. All school-year support was provided via webcam. The TRI program also provides a website with instructional resources and the ability to interact with coaches via email. During the school year, teachers delivered ongoing one-on-one reading instruction for struggling readers in 15-minute sessions. Each session included the following three components: (1) re-reading selected texts for fluency; (2) “word work” using letter tiles to demonstrate the alphabetic principle, teach phoneme–grapheme relationships, support phonemic awareness development, and improve student recognition of sight words; and (3) guided oral reading (more detail on the three components is provided in the study). Teachers worked individually with a student for an average of 14 sessions over the course of the year. When students made progress, they were placed in a small group, and another struggling reader began receiving one-on-one instruction from the teacher.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition continued to receive normal reading instruction, without the use of the TRI, via their regular classroom teacher or other school staff.

Support for implementation

All of the TRI coaches had experience as teachers and/or reading coaches in early elementary school. Most were doctoral students in education. The coaches received feedback from the intervention director by providing videotapes of their own teaching of individual students. The coaches received additional feedback throughout the school year, with a particular focus on how to motivate teachers to implement the TRI well.

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: February 2014

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Letter-Word Identification

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Struggling readers in treatment schools;
299 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
19
More Outcomes

Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Struggling readers in treatment schools;
298 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
15

Spelling of sounds

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Struggling readers in treatment schools;
297 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
15

Letter-Word Identification

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
330 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Spelling of sounds

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
327 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
328 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Passage comprehension

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Struggling readers in treatment schools;
299 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
18
More Outcomes

Passage comprehension

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
331 students

N/A

N/A

No

 
 
11

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Struggling readers in treatment schools;
294 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools

Fall to Spring

Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
323 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 50%
    Male: 50%
  • Race
    Not specified
    50%

  • Rural
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top