Adaptive READS showed no significant main effect on teachers' literacy-related learning or on their READS-related classroom literacy practices¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Condition had no significant main effect on teachers' self-reported literacy-related learning, with a nonsignificant advantage for Adaptive READS of .17 SD. → Quinn and Kim 2017 q3 i? The Adaptive condition had no significant main effect on teachers' READS-related literacy practices outside of READS (coefficient .23 SD). → Quinn and Kim 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Quinn and Kim 2017¶

David M. Quinn, James S. Kim. (2017). Scaffolding Fidelity and Adaptation in Educational Program Implementation: Experimental Evidence From a Literacy Intervention. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217717692

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Main-effects OLS model (Table 3, Column 1) in the cluster-randomized trial of 27 schools predicting the standardized literacy learning index; the Adaptive coefficient of 0.171 (SE 0.199) was not significant. Teachers with READS experience reported learning less (ES = –.59 SD).

"In the first column, we see that condition did not have a significant main effect on teachers' self-reported learning (with a nonsignificant advantage for Adaptive READS of .17 SD)."

Quinn and Kim 2017 (2)¶

David M. Quinn, James S. Kim. (2017). Scaffolding Fidelity and Adaptation in Educational Program Implementation: Experimental Evidence From a Literacy Intervention. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217717692

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Main-effects OLS model (Table 4, Column 1) predicting the standardized READS-related literacy practices index in the same 27-school trial; the Adaptive coefficient of 0.227 (SE 0.227) was not significant, and prior READS experience (–.330) was also not significant.

"As seen in Column 1, the Adaptive condition had no significant main effect on this outcome (with a coefficient of .23 SD), and teachers' prior experience with READS also did not significantly predict their READS-related literacy practices outside of READS (–.33 SD)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adaptive READS improved student fall reading comprehension overall, but the effect was concentrated among students whose teachers had prior READS experience — related
• The effect of Adaptive READS versus Core READS on teachers' intervention-related literacy learning depends on teachers' prior experience with Core READS, supporting the scaffolded hypothesis — related
• Adaptive READS had no significant main effect on teachers' incorporation of READS-related practices into regular classroom practice, but the effect differed significantly by prior READS experience, positive for experienced teachers and statistically zero for novices — related
• Intervention management approach (adaptive vs. fidelity) had no significant main effect on teachers' self-reported literacy-related learning, but teachers new to READS reported learning more than experienced teachers (ES=.51 sd) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)