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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Among teachers with past READS experience, Adaptive READS promoted more literacy-related learning than Core READS (ES = .46 SD, p = .052), while for teachers new to READS the Adaptive effect was negatively signed and not significant. → Quinn and Kim 2017 q3 i? The Adaptive READS × READS experience interaction on the literacy learning index was statistically significant (coefficient 0.750, p < .05). → Quinn and Kim 2017

q3 i? The effect of Adaptive READS on the literacy learning index interacted significantly with teachers' prior READS experience. → Quinn 2016

q3 i? Adaptive READS structures and activities were more beneficial for experienced teachers than were Traditional READS structures. → Quinn 2016

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 · i2 · causal · r2

OLS regression models with cluster-robust standard errors predicting the standardized literacy learning index (α = .84) in a cluster-randomized trial of 27 schools (N = 112 teachers). The interaction term Adaptive READS × READS Experience was 0.750 (SE 0.307, p < .05); the printed effect size for the Adaptive effect among experienced teachers was ES = .46 SD (p = .052).

"While the effect of Adaptive READS was negatively-signed and not significant for teachers new to READS, the effect of Adaptive READS was positive for teachers with past READS experience (ES = –.29 1 .75 = .46 SD, p = .052)."

Quinn 2016¶

Quinn, D. M., & Kim, J. S. (2016). Predictors and Moderators of Teacher Learning and Changes in Practice: Evidence from a Randomized Trial of a Teacher-Adapted Literacy Program. SREE Spring 2016 Conference abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567622

q3 · i? · causal · r2

OLS regression on the standardized literacy learning index (N=122 per Table 2) with an AdaptiveREADS Experience interaction term; the printed interaction coefficient is 0.677 (p<0.05). The interaction is depicted graphically in Figure 1.

"the effect of Adaptive READS differed significantly depending on whether teachers had past experience with READS. As hypothesized, the structures and activities of Adaptive READS were more beneficial for experienced teachers than were the structures and activities of Traditional READS"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The effect of Adaptive READS on teacher outcomes did not differ depending on the number of a teacher's READS-experienced colleagues on their team — related
• Adaptive READS improved student fall reading comprehension overall, but the effect was concentrated among students whose teachers had prior READS experience — related
• Adaptive READS showed no significant main effect on teachers' literacy-related learning or on their READS-related classroom literacy practices — 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
• The effect of Adaptive READS on teachers' literacy practices outside of READS was stronger when teachers were on implementation teams with more collective READS experience — 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) — reports the opposite
• Collaboration facilitates learning only under specific knowledge and experience conditions; with advanced learners it can be detrimental via the expertise reversal effect — a broader claim this one bears on