SIM receives a positive review from Robert Slavin (Jan | 2017)


SIM™ received a positive review in the Huffington Post by Robert Slavin, Director of the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University School of Education, and colleagues as part of their reviews of research on secondary reading and work on their web site, Evidence for ESSA, which summarizes research on all of elementary and secondary reading and math according to ESSA evidence standards.

Continue to Huffington Post Article

This article/blog from Dr. Robert Slavin (Johns Hopkins) makes several key points about rigorous research and effect sizes; he addresses Striving Reader studies, and the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM). Here are some points of interest:
1. Drs. Slavin and Cheung are reviewing the research that meets ESSA evidence standards for future publication. This should prove to be a great resource.
2. A number of recent reports have appeared and some of this is due to the federally funded Striving Readers studies as well as the Investing in Innovation (i3) program. England has also been conducting studies of secondary reading.
3. Unsurprisingly, large scale, randomized assignment studies, such as these, result in modest effect sizes. Such studies, such as several in which CRL’s materials have been test, had much smaller effect sizes than smaller studies or quasi-experimental studies.
4. “However, unlike small and quasi-experimental studies, rigorous experiments using standardized outcome measures replicate. These effect sizes may not be enormous, but you can take them to the bank….In our secondary reading review, we found an extraordinary example of this. The University of Kansas has an array of programs for struggling readers in middle and high schools, collectively called the Strategic Instruction Model, or SIM.”
5. Do not be discouraged by small effect sizes! The effect sizes from the KUCRL varied, mostly cluttered around the weighted mean of +0.09, but given the considerable varied contexts, the consistency is, as the authors stated, remarkable.
- The varied contexts were middle schools and/or high schools.
- Some students received an extra period of reading but others did not.
- Some studies were conducted for multiple years, and others were not.
- The schools settings ranged from inner-city to rural and all across the U.S.
6. Researchers can learn from zero impact work how to alter their product to arrive at different outcomes.
7. The authors’ reviews have surfaced programs for every subject and grade level that meet high evidence standard that can be implemented to improve outcomes for American schools.
8. Bipartisan support exists for schools to use evidence to enhance outcomes.
9. The authors are continuing their work to gather the evidence.

Read the report


Posted on Monday, February 13, 2017 in