Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum
Study: Fien et al. (2011)

Summary

The Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum is an instructional program designed to provide additional opportunities to preview, review, and enhance vocabulary and comprehension through the use of teacher read alouds with expository text. There are 9 instructional Units in the program. Each weekly Unit includes 4, 20 minute lessons. A consistent set of instructional routines is used across lessons before, during, and after each read aloud. Before a read aloud, instruction focuses on background knowledge building and explicit vocabulary instruction. During reading, teachers introduce question-asking strategies focused on identifying the main idea and details. A guided note-taking process is also used to help students record information about the main idea. After a read aloud, students engage in cumulative review activities. Vocabulary is discussed through the use of game formats, and comprehension is reviewed through the use of a main idea categorization activity. Throughout the Small-Group Curriculum, text-based discourse is used as a context for student language use and as an opportunity to prompt student vocabulary use and language-based elaborations. The program is aligned with the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and National Science Education Standards.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Comprehension
  • Vocabulary
Where to Obtain:
Scott K. Baker, Lana Edwards Santoro, Hank Fien, David J. Chard, Susanna Williams
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
1-888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/
Initial Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Information on cost and printing can be obtained from the developer at readingctl@uoregon.edu

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
4-8 hours of training


The Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum was evaluated in a study with first-grade students identified with low language and vocabulary skills. Overall, 102 first-grade students scoring below the 50th percentile on relational vocabulary were blocked by classroom, matched according to vocabulary score, and randomly assigned within 18 participating classrooms to one of two conditions. All students in the study participated in a whole-class Read Aloud Curriculum and students in the intervention group received instruction from the Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum for 20 min, 2 x per week, for 8 weeks in addition to the whole group instruction in addition to the whole-group instruction. Because students were nested under instructional conditions within classrooms or blocks, three-level hierarchical linear modeling provided an appropriate analytic framework to test the effect of the Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum.

Access to Technical Support:
readingctl@uoregon.edu
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
20
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
4
Minimum Number of Weeks:
9
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum is an instructional program designed to provide additional opportunities to preview, review, and enhance vocabulary and comprehension through the use of teacher read alouds with expository text. There are 9 instructional Units in the program. Each weekly Unit includes 4, 20 minute lessons. A consistent set of instructional routines is used across lessons before, during, and after each read aloud. Before a read aloud, instruction focuses on background knowledge building and explicit vocabulary instruction. During reading, teachers introduce question-asking strategies focused on identifying the main idea and details. A guided note-taking process is also used to help students record information about the main idea. After a read aloud, students engage in cumulative review activities. Vocabulary is discussed through the use of game formats, and comprehension is reviewed through the use of a main idea categorization activity. Throughout the Small-Group Curriculum, text-based discourse is used as a context for student language use and as an opportunity to prompt student vocabulary use and language-based elaborations. The program is aligned with the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and National Science Education Standards.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
Phone Number
1-888-497-4290
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

Information on cost and printing can be obtained from the developer at readingctl@uoregon.edu

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   2-5

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
4
Minimum number of weeks
9
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
4-8 hours of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
Yes   

If yes, please describe: 

Some experience with reading instruction

Are training manuals and materials available?

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
The Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum was evaluated in a study with first-grade students identified with low language and vocabulary skills. Overall, 102 first-grade students scoring below the 50th percentile on relational vocabulary were blocked by classroom, matched according to vocabulary score, and randomly assigned within 18 participating classrooms to one of two conditions. All students in the study participated in a whole-class Read Aloud Curriculum and students in the intervention group received instruction from the Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum for 20 min, 2 x per week, for 8 weeks in addition to the whole group instruction in addition to the whole-group instruction. Because students were nested under instructional conditions within classrooms or blocks, three-level hierarchical linear modeling provided an appropriate analytic framework to test the effect of the Read Aloud Small-Group Curriculum.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

readingctl@uoregon.edu

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.
 

Fien, H., Santoro, L., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., Chard, D. J., Williams, S., Haria, P. (2011). Enhancing teacher read alouds with small-group vocabulary instruction for students with low vocabulary in first-grade classrooms. School psychology review, 40 (2), 307-318.

Study Information

Study Citations

Fien, H., Santoro, L., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., Chard , D. J., Williams, S. & Haria, P. (2011). Enhancing Teacher Read Alouds with Small-Group Vocabulary Instruction for Students with Low Vocabulary in First-Grade Classrooms. School psychology review, 40(2) 307-318.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students selected for the study were participating in classrooms implementing the whole-class Read Aloud Curriculum.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were identified as being at risk for academic failure if they scored below the 50th percentile on relational vocabulary skills.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The intervention treatment (small-group Read Aloud) is the submitted program.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The study design employed the use of a no-treatment control. However, because the schools were not typically providing interventions to this sample of students, the control condition can also be conceptualized as business-as-usual.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1 54 52 0.00
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 1 2 0.43
American Indian 1 2 0.43
Asian/Pacific Islander 1
Hispanic 10 10 0.00
White 40 36 0.15
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 4 3 0.10
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 30 21 0.39
Male 24 31 0.39

Mean Effect Size

0.24

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

There were no significant differences in pretest scores by condition.

Design Full Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
A randomized block design was employed (i.e., blocking on classroom) to help determine if additional small-group instruction would enhance the vocabulary and comprehension of students identified with low language and vocabulary skills. All students in each classroom were screened at the start of the study to determine early language and vocabulary risk levels. The 10 students in each classroom who scored below the 50th percentile on the Relational Vocabulary subtest of the Test of Oral Language Development—Primary (3rd edition; TOLD-P-3; Newcomer & Hammill, 1997) were matched on the basis of their Relational Vocabulary subtest scores.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
4
Minimum group size
2
Maximum group size
5

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
8.00
Sessions per week
2.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
20.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Instructors received a full-day training and regular ongoing support to implement the small-group intervention.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
A research team member observed and documented the implementation of the small-group lessons and evaluated the integrity of intervention implementation. Fidelity was evaluated according to the presence or absence of critical components, and a percentage of total components demonstrated. Fidelity was assessed four times for each instructor.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Average fidelity of implementation was 87% (range of 79% to 97%) and represented the number of items observed divided by the total number of items.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
A no-treatment comparison was used so fidelity was not measured on control classrooms.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
1
Citations for Additional Research Studies :
Baker, S., Santoro, L., Chard, D., Fien, H., Park, Y., & Otterstedt, J. (2013). An evaluation of an explicit read aloud intervention taught in whole-classroom formats in first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 331-358.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.