Download Adolescent Literacy, Reading Plus and more Study notes Design in PDF only on Docsity!
What Works Clearinghouse
WWC Intervention Report U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Adolescent Literacy September 2010
Reading Plus
Program Description^1 Reading Plus®^ is a web-based reading intervention that uses
technology to provide individualized scaffolded silent reading practice for students in grade 3 and higher. Reading Plus® aims to develop and improve students’ silent reading fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Reading Plus®^ is designed to adjust the difficulty of the content and duration of reading
activities so that students proceed at a pace that corresponds to their reading skill level. The intervention includes differentiated reading activities, computer-based reading assessments, tools to monitor student progress, ongoing implementation support, and supplemental offline activities.
Research^2 One study of Reading Plus®^ that falls within the scope of the
Adolescent Literacy review protocol meets What Works Clearing- house (WWC) evidence standards with reservations. The study included 13,128 students, ranging from grade 5 through grade 9, who attended schools in Miami-Dade County in Florida.^3 Based on one study, the WWC considers the extent of evi- dence for Reading Plus®^ on adolescent learners to be small for
the comprehension domain. The one study that meets WWC evi- dence standards with reservations did not examine the effective- ness of Reading Plus®^ on adolescent learners in the alphabetics, reading fluency, or general literacy achievement domains.
Effectiveness Reading Plus®^ was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension for adolescent learners.
Alphabetics Reading fluency Comprehension
General literacy
achievement
Rating of effectiveness na na Potentially positive effects na
Improvement index na^ na^ +2 percentile points^ na
na = not applicable
- The descriptive information for this program was obtained from a publicly available source: the developer’s website (http://www.readingplus.com/, downloaded December 2009). The WWC requests developers to review the program description sections for accuracy from their perspective. Further verification of the accu- racy of the descriptive information for this program is beyond the scope of this review. The literature search reflects documents publicly available by March 2010.
- The studies in this report were reviewed using WWC Evidence Standards, Version 2.0 (see the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Chapter III), as described in protocol Version 2.0.
- The evidence presented in this report is based on available research. Findings and conclusions may change as new research becomes available.
Additional program
information
Developer and contact Reading Plus®^ was developed by Taylor Associates/Commu- nications, Inc. Address: Reading Plus®/Taylor Associates, 110 West Canal Street, Suite 301, Winooski, VT 05404. Email: info@ readingplus.com. Web: http://www.readingplus.com/. Telephone: (800) 732-3758; (802) 735-1942. Fax: (802) 419-4786.
Scope of use The program is used in public and private elementary and sec- ondary schools, colleges and universities, and reading clinics, as well as through home study courses. Students of all abilities and from multiple subpopulations, in both urban and rural settings, use Reading Plus®.
Teaching Reading Plus®^ includes web-based assessment and intervention components, as well as supplemental offline activities for direct instruction. After a student completes the initial assessments that determine the individual independent silent reading rate and level, the computer-based program assigns the student to the appropriate Reading Plus®^ intervention path and adapts to meet individual needs while the program is being used. The program length (and intensity) can vary from 9 weeks (3–4 times per week) to 30 weeks (5 times per week).
Within a typical 45-minute Reading Plus®^ session, students engage in the following activities:
- Visual perceptual warm-up activities that aim to build attention, left-to-right tracking, perceptual accuracy, and the visual memory required for proficient reading
- Scaffolded silent reading activities that dynamically adjust content-level difficulty, degree of repetition, duration of reading, rate, and style of presentation
- Contextual analysis activities that aim to build word knowledge and contextual analysis skills, vocabulary mastery, and predictive and inferential abilities Competency with 25 comprehension skills is tracked during the scaffolded silent reading activities, and students are assigned appropriately leveled offline skills lessons that target identified deficiencies. Teachers are provided guidelines for organizing small-group and whole-group comprehension skills instruction using these offline assignments.
Cost Reading Plus®^ license and hosting costs for schools are based on the number of participating students. Costs in typical installa- tions vary from $15 to $30 per student.
Research Eighteen studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects
of Reading Plus®^ on adolescent learners. One study (Reading Plus, 2008) is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evi- dence standards with reservations. The remaining 17 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens.
Meets evidence standards with reservations Reading Plus (2008) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effects of Reading Plus®^ on students in grades
5 to 9 across 98 schools in Florida. Students who completed one or more Reading Plus®^ lessons during the 2006–07 school year formed the intervention group, and students who completed no Reading Plus®^ lessons during the same period constituted the comparison group. Although impacts of Reading Plus®^ were analyzed for various grades and student populations, baseline equivalence^4 between intervention and comparison conditions was established only for low-achieving students (who scored at level 1 or 2 on the 2006 reading portion of the Florida
- Baseline equivalence of the analytical sample was established using these criteria (see the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.0, Chapter III, p. 15): (1) the reported difference of the observed characteristics (defined in the topic area review protocol) must be less than 0.25 of a standard deviation (based on the variation of that characteristic in the pooled sample), and (2) the effects must be statistically adjusted for baseline differences in the characteristics if the difference is greater than 0.05 of a standard deviation.
The WWC found
Reading Plus®^ to have
potentially positive
effects on comprehension
for adolescent learners
(continued)
index is entirely based on the size of the effect, regardless of the statistical significance of the effect, the study design, or the analysis. The improvement index can take on values between –50 and +50, with positive numbers denoting favorable results for the intervention group. The improvement index for comprehension is +2 percentile points for a single finding from one study.
Summary The WWC reviewed 18 studies on Reading Plus®^ for adolescent learners. One of these studies meets WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 17 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens. Based on one study, the WWC found potentially positive effects on compre- hension for adolescent learners. The conclusions presented in this report may change as new research emerges.
References Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Reading Plus. (2008). Reading improvement report: Miami-Dade regions II and III. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/ Communications, Inc.
Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards Allen, L. A. (2006). Metacognition and reading: Strategies for struggling readers (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University). Masters Abstracts International, 45(03), 57–1186. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Barnes, J. E. (2003). A pilot study regarding the effects of the Reading Plus program on reading levels. Unpublished master’s thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the speci- fied age or grade range. Marrs, H., & Patrick, C. (2002). A return to eye-movement train- ing? An evaluation of the Reading Plus program. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 297. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Matthews, A. (2005). Effects of using Reading Plus 2000 ® on the reading rate of students with learning disabilities and visual efficiency problems. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample
aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students. Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2010). The value-added of a silent read- ing fluency instructional protocol and grade 4–10 students’ achievement in reading comprehension and general literacy. Unpublished manuscript. The study does not meet WWC evi- dence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent. Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2010). The value-added of a silent reading fluency instructional protocol and retained students’ achievement in reading comprehension and general literacy. Unpublished manuscript. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol— the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Phillips, S. (2006). Hi-tech goggles said to aid reading. Times Educational Supplement (4691), 20 The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effective- ness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review. Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (in press). The relationship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students’ reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Forthcoming in Reading Psychology. The study does not meet WWC evi- dence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
References (continued) Reading Plus. (2007). National research project: Nicoma Park
Intermediate School overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Reading Plus. (2007). National research project: Prescott High School overview 2006–2007. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Belle Valley Elementary School overview 2005–2006. Hun- tington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Fourth grade study overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it uses a randomized controlled trial design that either did not generate groups using a random process or had nonrandom allocations after random assignment, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent. Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Galatas Elementary study summary 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the speci- fied age or grade range.
Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Golden West High School overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent. Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Second grade study overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Schlange, D., Patel, H., & Caden, B. (1999). Evaluation of the Reading Plus 2000 and visagraph system as a remedial program for academically “at risk” sixth and eighth grade stu- dents: A pilot study. Optometry and Vision Science, 76(poster 11). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best- evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
