When implemented alone, neither Literature Logs nor Instructional Conversations produced statistically significant comprehension effects, in contrast to the combined intervention¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In the randomized trial's additional study groups, Literature Logs only showed non-significant differences versus comparison on factual and interpretive comprehension, and Instructional Conversations only likewise showed non-significant positive differences. → What Works Clearinghouse 2006
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2006¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs — WWC Intervention Report. http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/research/llaa/1.5pubs.html
q2 · i? · review · r?
Subgroup findings in Appendix A4.2 report Literature Logs only versus comparison at effect size 0.47 (factual) and 0.03 (interpretive), both ns, and Instructional Conversations only at 0.27 (factual) and 0.55 (interpretive), both ns. These subgroup results were excluded from the overall rating.
"Saunders and Goldenberg (1999) included two additional study groups (Instructional Conversations only and Literature Logs only). The results pertaining to these groups were not reviewed in this intervention report."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Some classroom discussion approaches improve text comprehension, but gains are not uniform across approaches and more student talk alone does not produce them — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs produce statistically significant positive effects on factual and interpretive story comprehension in a short-term randomized trial with English language learners — related
- Shared story reading was always implemented as one component of a multi-component intervention package, so component contributions are unknown — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The WWC rates Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs as having potentially positive effects on reading achievement and English language development — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ic-ll-single-component-effects-nonsignificant |
title |
When implemented alone, neither Literature Logs nor Instructional Conversations produced statistically significant comprehension effects, in contrast to the combined intervention |
description |
When implemented alone, neither Literature Logs nor Instructional Conversations produced statistically significant comprehension effects, in contrast to the combined intervention |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.