Results from randomized controlled trials demonstrate that the A2i system is more effective than traditional instruction (that is, students in A2i classrooms made more significant gains on standardized reading assessments compared to peers in control classrooms).
Free or Reduced Lunch (%)
Years Studied
Grade Levels
Effect Size*
Curricula
Size
Major Findings
Results
4 2008– 2009
C : 0.20 Students whose teachers used A2i made greater gains on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test than a comparison group using a vocabulary intervention.
Several curricula
448 students 33 teachers Seven schools
47%
3
The more precisely teachers followed the A2i recommended dosage for instruction, the greater were students’ reading comprehension gains. Students whose teachers used A2i demonstrated greater word reading skills on the Woodcock- Johnson III Letter-Word ID subtest than the control group. Students whose teachers used A2i intervention achieved about a two-month advantage in end-of- year word reading skills compared to those in the control condition. Students whose teachers used A2i demonstrated greater reading growth on the Gates-MacGinitie Passage Comprehension score than the control group.
5 2008– 2009 6 2009– 2010 7 2010– 2011 8 2008– 2011
WR : 0.32 C : 0.36
Several curricula
468 students 28 teachers
39–59%
1
WR : 0.44 C : 0.43
Several curricula
558 students 49 teachers
39–59%
2
WR : 0.25 C : 0.06
Several curricula
541 students 40 teachers
39–59%
3
WR : 0.77 Results revealed that the effects of A2i accumulated from first through third grade. Students who participated in A2i classrooms all three years achieved, on average, a fifth-grade reading level compared to a fourth-grade reading level for the control group students. Students who spent more years in A2i reading classrooms than in control classrooms made significantly greater gains in reading (Cohen’s d = 0.20 per year or 0.60 for three years compared with no years).
Several curricula
882 students 95 teachers
39–59% 1–3
Of the children who received A2i all three years, none achieved standard scores in reading below 85, and only 6% obtained standard scores of less than 90. This is in contrast to the control group, where 22% had standard scores below 90 and several had scores below 85, suggesting serious reading difficulties.
References Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher , 33, 3–15.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher , 18(1), 26–31.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., and Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher , 38(3), 181–199.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Technical report no. 106. Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education , 7, 6–10.
Hoover, W. A., and Tunmer, W. E. (2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education , 39(5), 304–312.
Kingston, N., and Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 30, 28-37.
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher , 49(4), 241–253.
National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W. Pellegrino and M. L. Hilton, Eds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson Eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volume 1 . pp. 97–110. New York: Guilford Press.
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs