Control struggling English learners showed slower word-level growth than control nonstruggling peers, while treatment struggling ELs gained at a similar but not catching-up rate¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In control classrooms, struggling ELs performed significantly lower than control nonstruggling ELs on spring Word Attack (B = −18.27, p = .01, g = −.74). → Steven J. Amendum 2018 q3 i? In treatment classrooms, the struggling-versus-nonstruggling difference on Word Attack was not significant (B = −10.93, p = .18), suggesting struggling ELs were gaining at a similar rate but not catching up within the year. → Steven J. Amendum 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Steven J. Amendum 2018¶

Steven J. Amendum, Mary Bratsch-Hines, Lynne Vernon-Feagans. (2018). Investigating the Efficacy of a Web-Based Early Reading and Professional Development Intervention for Young English Learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.188

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Planned comparison (CS vs. CN) from the model 1 Word Attack ANCOVA in the RCT of 108 ELs, showing control struggling ELs significantly below control nonstruggling ELs with "B = −18.27, p = .01, g = −.74".

"Furthermore, control struggling ELs performed significantly lower than control nonstrug- gling ELs (B = −18.27, p = .01, g = −.74)."

Steven J. Amendum 2018 (2)¶

Steven J. Amendum, Mary Bratsch-Hines, Lynne Vernon-Feagans. (2018). Investigating the Efficacy of a Web-Based Early Reading and Professional Development Intervention for Young English Learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.188

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Planned comparison (TS vs. TN) from the same Word Attack model in the RCT; the struggling-versus-nonstruggling gap was not significant in treatment classrooms (B = −10.93, p = .18). No effect size was printed for this non-significant contrast.

"This relation was not significant for treatment struggling ELs versus treat- ment nonstruggling ELs (B = −10.93, p = .18)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Fall oral vocabulary skills did not moderate TRI treatment effects for struggling English learners on any outcome — related
• Struggling English learners in TRI classrooms significantly outperformed control struggling ELs on spring Letter-Word Identification (g = .43) — related
• Struggling English learners in TRI classrooms significantly outperformed control struggling ELs on spring Word Attack (g = .45) — related