Among language-only interventions, instructional practices and one-on-one or small-group delivery produced significantly larger language gains than curricula and large-group or whole-class delivery¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Interventions classified as instructional practices produced a significantly larger weighted effect size on language performance than curricula (0.43 versus 0.02). → Sarah Herrera 2021 q3 i2 Language instruction including some one-on-one or small-group implementation yielded a significantly larger weighted effect size than exclusive large-group or whole-class delivery (0.43 versus 0.10). → Sarah Herrera 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah Herrera 2021¶

Sarah Herrera, Beth M. Phillips, Yi-Chieh Newton, Jennifer L. Dombek, and James A. Hernandez. (2021). Effectiveness of Early Literacy Instruction: Summary of 20 Years of Research. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, REL 2021-084. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Weighted effect size comparison among the 38 interventions that taught language only. Instructional practices yielded a weighted effect size of 0.43 versus 0.02 for curricula; the review notes 0.43 is "equivalent to a 17 percentile point increase in language performance."

"interventions classified as instructional practices produced a significantly larger weighted effect size on language performance than interventions classified as curricula (0.43 versus 0.02; see table B6 in appendix B)"

Sarah Herrera 2021 (2)¶

Sarah Herrera, Beth M. Phillips, Yi-Chieh Newton, Jennifer L. Dombek, and James A. Hernandez. (2021). Effectiveness of Early Literacy Instruction: Summary of 20 Years of Research. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, REL 2021-084. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Figure 2 comparison of 27 interventions using one-on-one or small-group instruction versus 11 using large-group or whole-class exclusively, among language-only interventions. Weighted effect sizes were 0.43 versus 0.10, and exclusive large-group or whole-class configurations did not improve language performance.

"The weighted effect size on language performance was significantly larger when language instruction included some one-on-one or small-group implementation than when it used large-group or whole-class configurations exclusively (0.43 versus 0.10; figure 2)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Small group instruction is associated with significantly larger effect sizes than CAI and incentive components in targeted secondary interventions — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Common strategies across reviewed Tier 2 interventions include structured curriculum, small group instruction, and progress-monitoring assessment tools — related
• Language and early writing interventions showed larger effects on researcher-developed than standardized outcome measures, while phonological awareness, print knowledge, and decoding effects were comparable across measure types — related
• Instruction in language, phonological awareness, and decoding improved performance in the taught domain, while interventions teaching print knowledge or early writing exclusively did not — related
• Research in language classes suggested cooperative learning was better than whole-class instruction for language skills and produced more student turns than teacher-centered classes — related