The evidence base for Reading Mastery with adolescent learners is small: only 2 of 175 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 175 studies reviewed on Reading Mastery for adolescent learners, one met WWC evidence standards and one met standards with reservations; the remaining 173 did not. → What Works Clearinghouse 2010

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2010¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: Reading Mastery (Adolescent Literacy). http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/downloads/Reading%20Mastery/Reading%20Mastery%20Signature%20Edition%20Brochure.pdf

q2 · i? · review · r3

The WWC's literature search reflects documents publicly available by August 2009 and reviewed under WWC Evidence Standards Version 2.0. The report states "the remaining 173 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens."

"A total of 175 studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Reading Mastery on adolescent learners. One study (Stockard, 2010) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards, and one study (Yu & Rachor, 2000) is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Accelerated Reader with adolescent learners is thin: only 2 of 318 reviewed studies met WWC standards — related
• The evidence base for PALS in the Adolescent Literacy review rests on a single randomized trial of 120 students across 12 schools, rated as meeting standards with reservations — related
• The guide's recommendations rest on a screened evidence base of 15 studies meeting WWC group design standards drawn from more than 2,800 citations — related
• The evidence base for the Lovaas Model is small: only two of 58 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — related
• Of 305 studies of Fast ForWord reviewed for adolescent learners, two met WWC evidence standards, six met standards with reservations, and 297 met neither — a broader claim this one bears on
• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — a broader claim this one bears on
• The evidence base for Core-Plus Mathematics is small: of 17 reviewed studies, only one met WWC standards (with reservations) and 16 did not meet standards or screens — a broader claim this one bears on