Integrated instruction significantly improves content knowledge of taught science and social studies material (g = 0.89), but not on standardized knowledge measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In a supplementary analysis, integrated instruction had a significant positive effect on content knowledge (g = 0.89, n = 55), significant only for researcher-developed (g = 0.94) and not standardized (g = 0.68, p = .13) measures. → HyeJin Hwang 2021

Evidence¶

HyeJin Hwang 2021¶

HyeJin Hwang, Sonia Q. Cabell & Rachel E. Joyner (2021). Effects of Integrated Literacy and Content-area Instruction on Vocabulary and Comprehension in the Elementary Years: A Meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Supplementary random-effects analysis of studies reporting content-knowledge posttests (not an inclusion criterion). The pooled effect was 0.89, CI [.54, 1.23], p < .001, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87.49).

"Overall, integrated literacy and content-area instruction had a significant and positive effect of 0.89 on knowledge measures (n = 55, CI = [.54, .1.23]). The overall effect size was significant (p < .001) and large according to Kraft's (2020) benchmarks"

HyeJin Hwang 2021 (2)¶

HyeJin Hwang, Sonia Q. Cabell & Rachel E. Joyner (2021). Effects of Integrated Literacy and Content-area Instruction on Vocabulary and Comprehension in the Elementary Years: A Meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Measure-type subgroups for content knowledge. Researcher-developed measures showed g = 0.94 (p < .001); standardized measures (n = 6) were not significant, and only highly aligned researcher-developed measures were significant. Equivalence was not tested.

"the overall effect size for researcher-developed knowledge outcomes was large and significant (n = 49, g = 0.94, CI = [.53, 1.34], p < .001), whereas the effect size for standardized knowledge outcomes was not significant (n = 6, g = 0.68, CI = [−.38, 1.74], p = .13)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Integrated literacy and content-area instruction significantly improves comprehension, including on standardized measures (g = 0.40 overall; g = 0.25 standardized) — related
• Vocabulary Instruction Improves Comprehension — related
• Whether strategy instruction works better in authentic content-area tasks is untested, and the one meta-analytic comparison recorded found larger gains in strategic ability in language-arts than in content-area classes — related
• A large randomized trial found no statistically significant effects of Project CRISS® on standardized grade 5 comprehension measures (James-Burdumy et al., 2009) — related
• Integrated instruction did not significantly improve standardized vocabulary outcomes — related
• Integrated literacy and content-area instruction significantly improves vocabulary in the elementary years (g = 0.91) — related