Consulting & Evaluation

Documents

Order by : Name | Date | Hits [ Descendent ]

IES Report (Nov. 2008): Enhanced Reading IES Report (Nov. 2008): Enhanced Reading

Date added: 06/21/2010
Date modified: 06/21/2010
Filesize: 786.08 kB
Downloads: 3080

Institute  of   Education    Sciences

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION EVALUATION AND REGIONAL ASSISTANCE

 

The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study

Findings from the Second Year of Implementation

  

This report presents findings from the Enhanced Reading Opportunities (ERO) study — a demonstration and rigorous evaluation of two supplemental literacy programs that aim to improve the reading comprehension skills and school performance of struggling ninth-grade readers: RAAL and Xtreme Reading

 

The key findings discussed in the report include the following:

  • On average, across the 34 participating high schools, the supplemental literacy programs improved student reading comprehension test scores by 0.08 standard deviation. This represents a statistically significant improvement in students’ reading comprehension (p-value = 0.042).
  • Seventy-seven percent of the students who enrolled in the ERO classes in the second year of the study were still reading at two or more years be-low grade level at the end of ninth grade, relative to the expected reading achievement of a nationally representative sample of ninth-grade students. One of the two interventions – Reading Apprenticeship Academic Literacy (RAAL) — had a positive and statistically significant impact on reading comprehension test scores (0.14 standard deviation; p-value = 0.015). Although not statistically significant, a positive impact on reading comprehension (0.02 standard deviation) was also produced by the other intervention, Xtreme Reading. The difference in impacts between the two programs is not statistically significant, and thus it can-not be concluded that RAAL had a different effect on reading comprehension than Xtreme Reading.

 

The overall impact of the ERO programs on reading comprehension test scores in the second year of implementation (0.08 standard deviation) is not statistically different from their impact in the first year of implemen­tation (0.09 standard deviation), nor is each intervention’s impact in the second year of implementation statistically different from its impact in the first year.

The implementation fidelity of the ERO programs was more highly rated in the second year of the study than in the first year. In comparison with the first year, a greater number of schools in the second year of the study were deemed to have programs that were well aligned with the program developers’ specifications for implementation fidelity (26 schools in the second year, compared with 16 schools in the first year), and fewer schools were considered to be poorly aligned (one school in the second year, compared with 10 schools in the first year).

 

IES Report (Sept. 2008): The Impact IES Report (Sept. 2008): The Impact

Date added: 06/21/2010
Date modified: 06/21/2010
Filesize: 371.29 kB
Downloads: 4097

Institute  of   Education    Sciences

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION EVALUATION AND REGIONAL ASSISTANCE

 

The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement

 

The study produced the following results:

  • Although there were positive impacts on teacher’s knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction and on one of the three instructional practices promoted by the study PD, neither PD intervention resulted in significantly higher student test scores at the end of the one-year treatment. Teachers in schools that were randomly assigned to receive the study’s PD scored significantly higher on the teacher knowledge test than did teachers in control schools, with standardized mean difference effect sizes (hereafter referred to as “effect sizes”) of 0.37 for the institute series alone (treatment A) and 0.38 for the institute series plus coaching (treatment B). Teachers in both treatment A and treatment B used explicit instruction to a significantly greater extent during their reading instruction blocks than teachers in control schools (effect size of 0.33 for treatment A and 0.53 for treatment B). However, there were no statistically significant differences in achievement between students in the treatment and control schools.
  • The added effect of the coaching intervention on teacher practices in the implementation year was not statistically significant. The effect sizes for the added impact of coaching were 0.21 for using explicit instruction, 0.17 for encouraging independent student activity, and 0.03 for differentiating instruction, but these effects may be due to chance.
  • There were no statistically significant impacts on measured teacher or student outcomes in the year following the treatment.

 

Robert E. Slavin; Response to Greenleaf and Petrosino Robert E. Slavin; Response to Greenleaf and Petrosino

Date added: 10/16/2010
Date modified: 10/16/2010
Filesize: 65.83 kB
Downloads: 2769

Robert E. Slavin responding to concerns raised by Cynthia Greenleaf and Anthony Petrosino (2009) in their letter to the editors.

 

 

Slavin, Robert E., Cheung, Alan, Groff, Cynthia, & Lake, Cynthia. (2008, July/Aug/Sept). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.. Reprinted with permission of the International Reading Association.   (This permission also includes the Responses/letters to the editor.) 

 

Santa & Santa; Reading Research Santa & Santa; Reading Research

Date added: 06/21/2010
Date modified: 06/21/2010
Filesize: 53.47 kB
Downloads: 2959

Carol Minnick Santa,

John L. Santa,

 

Reading Research

Reading Research Plagued by Poor Designs and Misleading Conclusions

 

Comment on the IES study “Effectiveness…” Highlighting several major problems of studies like this.