In kindergarten, English learner students benefited more from the embedded intervention in phonological awareness while non–English learner students benefited more from the standalone intervention in word reading¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2–r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Among kindergarten English learner students, FRA Phonological Awareness was 45 points higher in embedded than standalone schools, equivalent to 0.32 standard deviation and 12 percentile rank points. → Foorman 2017 q3 i1 Among kindergarten non–English learner students, SESAT Word Reading was 11 points higher in standalone than embedded schools, equivalent to 0.31 standard deviation and 12 percentile rank points. → Foorman 2017 (2) q3 i1 Within embedded schools, kindergarten English learner students outperformed non–English learner students on SESAT Word Reading by 9 points (0.27 standard deviation). → Foorman 2017 (3)

Evidence¶

Foorman 2017¶

Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades K–2 (REL 2017–251). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Kindergarten reading outcomes by English learner status and intervention group (table 4); the average FRA Phonological Awareness outcome was "45 points higher in embedded intervention schools than in standalone intervention schools" among English learner students. The printed effect size is 0.32 standard deviation (12 percentile rank points), though not significant after the Benjamini–Hochberg correction.

"The average FRA Phonological Awareness outcome among kindergarten English learner students was 45 points higher in embedded intervention schools than in standalone intervention schools"

Foorman 2017 (2)¶

Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades K–2 (REL 2017–251). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

Same kindergarten subgroup analysis (table 4); the SESAT Word Reading outcome was "higher for the standalone intervention than for the embedded intervention among non–English learner students". The printed effect size is 0.31 standard deviation (11 points, 12 percentile rank points), also not significant after the Benjamini–Hochberg correction.

"The SESAT Word Reading outcome was higher for the standalone intervention than for the embedded intervention among non–English learner students"

Foorman 2017 (3)¶

Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades K–2 (REL 2017–251). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Within-intervention comparison by English learner status (table 5); the SESAT Word Reading outcome was "higher among English learner students in embedded intervention schools than among non–English learner students in embedded intervention schools". The printed effect size is 0.27 standard deviation (9 points), with no differences in other reading outcomes within the same intervention group.

"In kindergarten the SESAT Word Reading outcome was higher among English learner students in embedded intervention schools than among non–English learner students in embedded intervention schools."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• English-Learner Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Reading and Language — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• At-risk K–2 students in both intervention groups improved on average 13–25 percentile points on reading outcomes and 6–25 percentile points on language outcomes — related
• Relative effects of the standalone versus embedded intervention were inconsistent across cohorts and baseline scores, favoring first one intervention and then the other — related
• A standalone tier 2 early literacy intervention did not significantly improve reading or language outcomes relative to an embedded intervention in grades K–2, except for grade 2 spelling — related