NCEE 2011-4004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Impact of a Reading

Intervention for Low-Literate

Adult ESL Learners

Executive Summary
The Impact of a Reading 

Intervention for Low-Literate Adult 

ESL Learners

Executive Summary

December 2010

Larry Condelli

Stephanie Cronen

Johannes Bos

American Institutes for Research

Fannie Tseng

Jacklyn Altuna 

Berkeley Policy Associates

Melanie Ali, Project Officer, Institute of Education Sciences

NCEE 2011-4004

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

John Q. Easton 

Director

December 2010 

This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences under Contract 

No. ED-01-CO-0026/0025. The project officer was Melanie Ali in the National 

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

IES evaluation reports present objective information on the conditions of 

implementation and impacts of the programs being evaluated. IES evaluation 

reports do not include conclusions or recommendations or views with regard to 

actions policymakers or practitioners should take in light of the findings in the 

reports.

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in 

part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the 

citation should be: Condelli, L., Cronen, S., Bos, J., Tseng, F., and Altuna, J. 

(2010). The Impact of a Reading Intervention for Low-Literate Adult ESL 

Learners—Executive Summary (NCEE 2011-4004). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

To order copies of this report,

• Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of 

Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. 

• Call in your request toll free to 1-877-4ED-Pubs. If 877 service is not yet 

available in your area, call 800-872-5327. Those who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) 

should call 800-437-0833. 

• Fax your request to 703-605-6794 or order online at 

http://www.edpubs.gov. 

This report also is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/. 

Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the 

Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-205-8113. 
iii

Acknowledgments

This study represents a collaborative effort of adult education programs, schools, 

teachers, researchers, students and the developers of the text Sam and Pat. We 

appreciate the willingness of the programs, schools, teachers and students to 

volunteer for the study, try new instructional materials and approaches, and 

respond to many requests for data and access to classrooms. 

We were also fortunate to have the advice of an expert technical working group. 

Members included Russell Gersten, University of Oregon’s Instructional Research 

Group; Daphne Greenberg, Georgia State University; Larry Hedges, 

Northwestern University; Robinson Hollister, Swarthmore College; Rebecca 

Maynard, formerly at the University of Pennsylvania, now at the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES); Robin Scarcella, University of California-Irvine; and 

Anne Whiteside, City College of San Francisco. We also benefitted from the 

informed feedback on the report from Terry Salinger and Dan Sherman at the 

American Institutes for Research (AIR). 

We would like to thank the Sam and Pat team who provided the teacher training 

and guidance during the study, including Jo Anne Hartel, Whit Hendon, Betsy 

Lowry, and John Strucker of World Education. We also thank the Mathematica 

team led by Susan Sprachman and Kathy Buek for leading the student pre- and 

post-testing for the study; John Sabatini, Jane Shore and Jennifer Lentini at the 

Educational Testing Service (ETS) for making sense of the test data and ensuring 

data quality; Anestine Hector-Mason, Dahlia Shaewitz, Suzannah Herrmann, and 

Lauren Amos for coordinating and conducting the classroom observations; Erin 

Hamilton, Andrea Harvey, and Erika Salomon for their support to the staff 

conducting data collection and processing; Castle Sinicrope at Berkeley Policy 

Associates (BPA) for analysis support; and all the AIR, BPA, Lewin Group, and

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. staff who worked with programs and schools 

to make the study happen: Mike Fishman, Mary Farrell, Karen Gardiner, Bret 

Barden, Rachel Augustin, Rachel Cook, Serena Retna, Sophie Shen, Lynne 

Blankenship, Julie Young, Anne Self, Chris Pefaure, and Savitha Moorthy. 
iv

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest1

The research team for this study consisted of a prime contractor, American 

Institutes for Research (AIR), and four subcontractors, BPA, ETS, the Lewin 

Group, and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. None of these organizations or 

their key staff has financial interests that could be affected by findings from the 

Study of the Impact of a Reading Intervention for Low-Literate Adult ESL 

Learners. No one on the technical working group, convened by the research team 

approximately once per year to provide advice and guidance, has financial 

interests that could be affected by findings from the evaluation. 

 

1 Contractors carrying out research and evaluation projects for IES frequently need to obtain 

expert advice and technical assistance from individuals and entities whose other professional work 

may not be entirely independent of or separable from the particular tasks they are carrying out for 

the IES contractor. Contractors endeavor not to put such individuals or entities in positions in 

which they could bias the analysis and reporting of results, and their potential conflicts of interest 

are disclosed.
v 

T HE I MPACT OF A R EADING I NTERVENTION

FOR L O W - L ITERATE A DULT ESL L EARNERS

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

According to the 2008 program year statistics from the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED), 44 percent of the 2.4 million students in the federally funded 

adult education program in the United States were English as a second language 

(ESL) students (ED, 2010). Of these, about 185,000 were at the lowest ESL level, 

beginning literacy. These students, many of whom face the dual challenge of 

developing basic literacy skills—including decoding, comprehending, and 

producing print—along with proficiency in English, represent a range of 

nationalities and cultural backgrounds. Although the majority of students come 

from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries, there are also students from 

Africa, India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, and the Caribbean (Wrigley, 

Richer, Martinson, Kubo, & Strawn, 2003). 

Adult basic education (ABE) and ESL programs, authorized by the Workforce 

Investment Act and also funded with state and local funds, are designed to assist 

students in their efforts to acquire literacy and language skills by providing 

instruction through local education agencies, community colleges, and 

community-based organizations. The content of instruction within ESL classes 

varies widely. It is often designed to assist students in their efforts to acquire 

literacy and language skills by providing a combination of oral language, 

competency-based work skills, and literacy instruction (Condelli, Wrigley, Yoon, 

Cronen, & Seburn, 2003). There is, however, little rigorous research that identifies 

effective instruction. A comprehensive review of published research studies on the 

effects of literacy interventions for ABE and adult ESL learners (Condelli & 

Wrigley, 2004) found that out of 17 adult education studies that used a rigorous 

methodology (i.e., quasi-experimental or randomized trials), only 3 included adult 

ESL learners (Diones, Spiegel, & Flugman, 1999; St. Pierre et al., 1995; St. Pierre 

et al., 2003). Furthermore, among the 3 studies that included adult ESL learners, 

only 1 presented outcomes for those learners, and that study experienced 

substantial methodological problems that limited the validity of the findings (e.g., 

a 40 percent overall attrition rate and different attrition rates in the intervention vs. 

control groups; Diones et al., 1999). 

To help improve research-based knowledge of effective instruction for 

low-literate ESL learners, the National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance of ED’s Institute of Education Sciences contracted with the 

American Institutes of Research (AIR) to conduct a Study of the Impact of a 

Reading Intervention for Low-Literate Adult ESL Learners. The intervention 

studied was the basal reader Sam and Pat, Volume I, published by Thomson-
vi 

Heinle (2006). The study team consisted of AIR, Berkeley Policy Associates 

(BPA), the Lewin Group, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Educational Testing 

Service (ETS), and World Education. 

The goal of this study was to test a promising approach to improving the literacy 

skills of low-literate adult ESL students under real-world conditions. In their 

review of the research on ESL instruction in related fields, including adult second 

language acquisition, reading and English as a foreign language instruction, 

Condelli & Wrigley (2004) concluded that instruction based on a systematic 

approach to literacy development was a promising intervention for low-literate 

adult ESL learners that would be valuable to study (Brown et al., 1996; Cheek & 

Lindsay, 1994: Chen & Graves, 1995; Carrell, 1985; Rich & Shepherd, 1993; 

Roberts, Cheek & Mumm, 1994). Specifically, the factors identified as defining a 

systematic approach to literacy development included: (1) a comprehensive 

instructional scope that includes direct instruction in phonics, fluency, vocabulary 

development and reading comprehension, (2) a strategic instruction sequence, 

(3) a consistent instructional format, (4) easy-to-follow lesson plans, and 

(5) strategies for differentiated instruction. 

Sam and Pat was selected as the focus of the study because it offers an approach 

to literacy development that is systematic, direct, sequential, and multi-sensory. It 

also includes multiple opportunities for practice with feedback. Consistent with 

characteristics identified as promising by Condelli & Wrigley (2004), Sam and 

Pat provides opportunities for cooperative learning, real world tasks, and an 

explicit focus on reading. In addition, the text was developed for and had been 

used by the developers with students similar to the study population (literacy level 

ESL learners).

The impact study used an experimental design to test the effectiveness of Sam and 

Pat in improving the reading and English language skills of adults enrolled in 66 

ESL literacy classes at 10 sites. The study addressed three key research questions:

1. How effective is instruction based on the Sam and Pat textbook in 

improving the English reading and language skills of low-literate adult 

ESL learners compared to instruction normally provided in adult ESL 

literacy classes? 

2. Is Sam and Pat effective for certain subgroups of students (e.g., native 

Spanish speakers)?

3. Is there a relationship between the amount of instruction in reading or 

English language skills and reading and English language outcomes? 
vii 

This report describes the implementation of Sam and Pat at the study sites, 

compares the instruction and student attendance in Sam and Pat classes with that 

in the standard adult ESL classes, and examines the impact of Sam and Pat on 

reading and English language outcomes. In addition, the report examines the 

relationship between instruction, attendance, and student outcomes. 

The study produced the following key results:

 More reading instruction was observed in Sam and Pat classes, while 

more English language instruction was observed in control classes. The 

Sam and Pat classrooms spent more time on reading development 

instruction (66 percent of observed intervals in Sam and Pat classrooms 

compared to 19 percent in control classrooms), and the difference was 

statistically significant. Conversely, the control classrooms spent more 

time on English language acquisition instruction (68 percent of observed 

intervals in control classrooms compared to 27 percent in Sam and Pat

classrooms), and this difference was also statistically significant.

 Although students made gains in reading and English language skills, 

no differences in reading and English language outcomes were found 

between students in the Sam and Pat group and students in the control 

group. On average, students participating in the study made statistically 

significant gains in reading and English language skills over the course of 

the term (effect sizes of 0.23 to 0.40). However, there were no statistically 

significant impacts of Sam and Pat on the reading and English language 

outcomes measured for the overall sample. 

 There were no impacts of Sam and Pat on reading and English 

language outcomes for five of six subgroups examined. For students 

with relatively lower levels of literacy at the start of the study, there was 

some suggestive evidence of a positive impact on reading outcomes.

2

Among students with lower levels of literacy at the beginning of the term, 

Sam and Pat group students scored higher on the Woodcock Johnson 

word attack (decoding) assessment than control group students (effect 

size = 0.16). Because this difference was not significant after adjusting for 

multiple comparisons, however, it is possible that the effect is due to 

chance alone. 

 

2 Lower literacy was defined as scoring at a Grade 2 equivalent or below on the Woodcock 

Johnson Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack subtests (raw scores of 31 and 9, 

respectively).
viii

Summary of Study Design and Methods

The study was designed to estimate the impact of Sam and Pat relative to standard 

ESL instruction (i.e., the kind of instruction ESL students in study sites would 

receive in the absence of the study) on reading and English language outcomes. 

The evaluation employed a randomized research design that included the 

following: 

 10 adult education program sites; 

 33 teachers;

 66 classes; and 

 1,344 low-literate adult ESL learners. 

The program sites were a purposive sample. From among the states with the

largest adult ESL enrollments, we selected sites that had enrollments of adult ESL 

literacy learners large enough to support the study design, 2 or more classes for 

ESL literacy students that met at the same time and in the same location, and an 

enrollment process that would accommodate random assignment. 

Within each site, teachers and students were randomly assigned to one of 

two groups: 

 The Sam and Pat group, which was intended to include a minimum of 

60 hours of Sam and Pat-based instruction per term, with any remaining 

class time being spent on the standard instruction provided by the 

program; and 

 The control group, which consisted of the standard instruction provided by 

the program. 

Teachers (or classes) within each program site were randomly assigned in pairs, 

so that, within each pair, the Sam and Pat and control class met at the same time, 

in the same or an adjacent building, and for the same number of hours. Data 

collection for the study occurred between September 2008 and May 2009 with 

two cohorts of students, one that attended in fall 2008 and the second in spring 

2009. Students were tested on the study’s battery of assessments, which included 

tests of reading and English language skills at the beginning of the term and after 

about 12 weeks of instruction. A description and schedule for the study’s data 

collections are provided in Table ES.1. 
ix

The following tests were selected to measure the range of skills that could 

potentially be impacted by Sam and Pat–based instruction: 

Reading Skills

 Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification (WJID; Woodcock, 

McGrew, & Mather, 2001) 

 Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension (WJPC; Ibid.) 

 Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack (WJWA; Ibid.) 

 SARA Decoding (SARA Dec; Sabatini & Bruce, in press) 

English Language Skills

 Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1996) 

 Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT; Brownell, 

2000) 

 Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary Test (WJPV; Woodcock, 

McGrew, & Mather, 2001) 

Table ES.1: Data Collection Schedule 

Data Collection Respondent

Summer 

2008

Fall 

2008

Spring 

2009 Type of Data

Teacher Data Form 

(2008)

Teachers X X Teacher background 

information 

Teacher Data Form 

(2009)

Teachers X Descriptive information 

about instructional 

materials used and Sam 

and Pat implementation

Student Intake 

Form

Site Staff on 

Behalf of 

Students

X X Student background 

information

Reading and 

English Language 

Pre-Tests

Students X X Pre-test data

Reading and 

English Language 

Post-Tests

Students X X Outcomes data

Daily Student 

Attendance Sheets

Teachers X X Dosage/exposure to 

instruction 

Classroom 

Observations

Evaluation Staff X X Descriptive information 

about instruction in both 

groups
x 

The basic analytic strategy for assessing the impacts of Sam and Pat was to 

compare reading and English language outcomes for students who were randomly 

assigned to either the Sam and Pat or the control group, after controlling for 

student and teacher background characteristics (e.g., gender and ethnicity). The 

average outcome in the control group represents an estimate of the scores that 

would have been observed in the Sam and Pat group if they had not received the 

intervention; therefore, the difference in outcomes between the Sam and Pat and 

control groups provides an unbiased estimate of the impacts of Sam and Pat.

The Adult ESL Literacy Intervention: Sam and Pat

The Sam and Pat textbook (Hartel, Lowry, & Hendon, 2006) is described by the 

developers as a basal reader or textbook that tailors the methods and concepts of 

the Wilson and Orton-Gillingham reading systems developed for native speakers 

of English (Wilson & Schupack, 1997; Gillingham & Stillman, 1997) to meet the 

needs of adult ESL literacy level learners.3 Sam and Pat was designed to 

incorporate the following components of the Wilson/Orton-Gillingham systems:

 A focus on moving students systematically and sequentially from simple 

to complex skills and materials;

 The use of multisensory approaches to segmenting and blending 

phonemes (e.g., sound tapping); 

 An emphasis on alphabetics/decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and reading 

comprehension; 

 The use of sound cards and controlled text (wordlists, sentences, stories) 

for practicing skills learned; and

 Continual review (cumulative instruction) of letters, sounds, and words 

already learned.

However, when writing Sam and Pat, the developers made variations on the base 

reading systems to make the text useful and relevant to the adult ESL literacy 

population for which the text was designed. Specifically, Sam and Pat differs 

from the base reading systems on four dimensions: 

 The sequence in which the sounds of English are taught; 

 The words chosen for phonics and vocabulary study; 

 The simplification of grammar structures presented; and

 The added bridging of systematic reading instruction to ESL instruction. 

 

3 Although there is no available research on the effectiveness of Sam and Pat, the textbook and its 

accompanying training and technical support is based on these two reading systems (Wilson &

Orton-Gillingham), which have shown promise in teaching struggling readers (Adams, 1991; 

Clark & Uhry, 1995; Kavenaugh, 1991; Torgesen et al., 2006).
xi

Building on the components of the earlier reading systems, Sam and Pat was 

therefore designed to (1) sequence the teaching of English sound and spelling 

patterns to ESL students by moving from a focus on simple to complex literacy 

skills and materials, (2) provide a controlled basal that follows this sequence of 

patterns, (3) use a simplified grammar, (4) embed a controlled vocabulary that is 

relevant to the lives of this population of students, and (5) include a collection of 

stories that are based on simplified themes from daily life. 

There are two volumes of Sam and Pat, and the Volume 1 literacy textbook was 

evaluated by this study. It is organized into a total of 22 multi-component lessons. 

The lessons follow what the developers consider to be an optimal sequence for 

introducing English phonics and high-frequency English sight words to 

non-native speakers of English. However, the sequence in which English vowels 

and consonant sounds are introduced has been modified from that usually used in 

approaches such as the Wilson and Orton-Gillingham reading systems. For 

example, like the Wilson System, Sam and Pat begins with the short-a sound, but 

short-a is followed several lessons later by short-u, rather than short-i. This 

modification was made to provide the maximum sound contrasts for the short 

vowel sounds that are notoriously challenging for English language learners to 

discriminate.

Although the current study was a large-scale effectiveness study, we took 

measures intended to facilitate the implementation of Sam and Pat. The Sam and 

Pat developers provided the teachers assigned to the Sam and Pat group with 

training and technical assistance on implementing Sam and Pat. The training was 

developed specifically for the study, and included a 3-day training before the start 

of the fall 2008 term and a 2-hour refresher webinar before the start of the winter 

2009 term. The technical assistance provided to all Sam and Pat teachers included 

a site visit to observe and provide feedback early in the fall term, biweekly phone 

calls during the first 2 months of the fall term, and additional assistance as needed 

in response to phone calls and e-mails from teachers. The developers also 

provided 1 day of individualized assistance in person early in the winter term to 

teachers who appeared to be having difficulty implementing Sam and Pat.

Summary of Study Findings

Two-thirds of Sam and Pat Classes Observed Demonstrated Evidence of 

Implementing Sam and Pat as Intended 

About two-thirds (65 percent) of the Sam and Pat classes observed met the 

study’s instructional fidelity criteria regarding the use of Sam and Pat materials 

and engagement in reading instruction. More specifically, these teachers met the

following criteria that were established in collaboration with the developers 

before the study began: 
xii

 Sam and Pat materials must be used for a minimum of 1 hour of 

instruction per class day; 

 Each class day must include at least 1 hour of instruction in reading 

development; and 

 Each class day, instruction should occur in at least three of the reading 

development instructional areas (e.g., phonics, fluency, reading 

comprehension). 

Because we did not observe all hours of instruction throughout the term, we 

cannot determine how many hours of Sam and Pat instruction were received by 

each student. However, students in the Sam and Pat group met for an average of 

79 hours total over the course of the term (not shown in tables). The Sam and Pat

developers recommended that the text be implemented for a minimum of 60 hours 

per term. 

More Reading Instruction Observed in Sam and Pat Classes, While More

English Language Instruction Observed in Control Classes

The Sam and Pat classrooms spent more time on reading development instruction 

than control classrooms (66 percent vs. 19 percent of observed time intervals, 

respectively), and the difference was statistically significant (Figure ES.1). 

Conversely, the control classrooms spent more time on English language 

acquisition instruction than did Sam and Pat classrooms (68 percent vs. 

27 percent of observed time intervals, respectively), and this difference was 

statistically significant. The control classrooms also spent more time on functional 

reading, writing and math instruction (content related to English language 

acquisition instruction) than Sam and Pat classrooms (18 percent vs. 5 percent of 

observed time intervals, respectively).4 

 

4 We can only characterize implementation by reporting that (1) 65 percent of Sam and Pat classes 

met the study’s fidelity criteria, and (2) significantly more reading instruction was delivered in 

these classes, as compared to the control group classes.
xiii

Figure ES.1: Percent of Observed Instructional Intervals

Spent in Key Instructional Areas, by Group 

* Indicates a difference that is significant at the 0.05 level, based on a 2-tailed t-test.

Notes: N = 980 observation intervals for Sam and Pat group and 1,034 intervals for control group. Details 

may not sum to totals. Practices may be coded under multiple instructional areas during any one interval. 

Source: Adult ESL Literacy Impact Study classroom observation protocol.

Students Made Gains, but There Were No Overall Impacts of Sam and Pat

on Students’ Reading and English Language Skills 

On average, students participating in the study made statistically significant gains 

over the course of the term (effect sizes of 0.23 to 0.40). These gains are 

equivalent to 1 to 2 months of growth on the reading assessments, and 5 to 

6 months of growth on the English language assessments.5 However, there were 

no statistically significant impacts of Sam and Pat on the reading and English 

language outcomes measured for the overall sample (Figure ES.2). Effect sizes 

ranged from -0.06 to 0.01. 

 

5 It should be noted that publisher guidelines for the grade and age equivalent calculations used to 

determine months of gains are based on norming populations that differ from the study population. 

(The WJ assessments were normed on a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents aged 

2 to 90+; the OWLS on a representative U.S. sample aged 3 to 21 years; and the ROWPVT on a 

representative U.S. sample aged 2 to 18 years.) No norming data exist for low-literate adult ESL 

learners. Additionally, the study used simplified or translated testing instructions when students 

did not appear to understand the tester’s directions. For these reasons, the number of months of 

growth should be interpreted with caution.
xiv

Figure ES.2: Impact of Sam and Pat on Reading and English

Language Skills: Differences Between Sam and Pat and 

Control Groups at the End of the Term

Notes: N = 580 for Sam and Pat group and 557 for control group. No impacts were statistically significant at 

the 0.05 level. 

Source: Adult ESL Literacy Impact Study student intake forms and assessments administered at the 

beginning and end of each term (fall 2008 and spring 2009), and fall 2008 teacher data form.

No Impacts of Sam and Pat on Reading and English Language Outcomes 

Found for Subgroups Based upon Student Native Language and Cohort

There were no statistically significant impacts found for students with a nonRoman-based alphabet background, native Spanish speakers, students from the 

first study cohort, or students from the second study cohort. Effect sizes ranged 

from –0.14 to 0.09. 

Some Suggestive Evidence of a Positive Impact on Reading Outcomes for 

Lower Literacy Students

No statistically significant impacts were found for the students in the sample with 

relatively higher literacy levels (effect sizes ranged from –0.08 to 0.03). However, 

there was a suggestive finding for students who tested in the lower literacy score 

range at the beginning of the term. Within this subgroup, Sam and Pat group 

students scored higher on the Woodcock Johnson word attack (decoding) 
xv

assessment than control group students (effect size = 0.16). Because this

difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple 

comparisons, however, it is possible that the effect is due to chance alone. No 

impacts were found for the lower literacy students on the other reading and 

English language outcomes measured. 

Student Exposure to Reading or English Language Instruction Unrelated to 

Most Reading and English Language Outcomes Measured, Although Weak 

Relationships Found Between Exposure to Instruction and One English 

Language Outcome

Student exposure to instruction was measured by the combination of reading and 

English language instruction provided in study classes and the number of hours 

students attended study classes. No statistically significant relationships were 

found between exposure to instruction and any of the reading outcomes measured 

and two of the three English language outcomes measured. However, the amount 

of exposure to English language instruction was positively and statistically 

significantly correlated with ROWPVT scores. The opposite pattern was found for 

reading instruction; exposure to reading instruction had a negative and statistically 

significant relationship with scores on the ROWPVT. However, the standardized 

coefficients in both cases were small (0.034 and –0.032, respectively). As an 

example, the 0.034 coefficient on the ROWPVT assessment indicates that, after 

controlling for total student attendance hours, an increase of 10 percent in the 

number of English language instruction intervals a student attended is associated 

with a 0.34 point increase on the test (which had a sample mean of 29). In 

addition, similar to the student attendance results, we cannot rule out the 

possibility that the statistically significant relationships were driven by other 

factors. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution. 

Generalizability of the Study Findings

The findings reported in this summary are limited to the specific intervention 

tested (Sam and Pat, v. 1) as implemented within the types of sites included in the 

study. For example, the study was implemented in sites large enough to offer at 

least 2 literacy level classes at the same time and location, within a subset of 

states that have the highest adult ESL enrollments. It is not known whether, or 

how, the results may generalize to other contexts. 
xvi 

R EFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1991). Beginning to Read. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). “A quasiexperimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with 

previously low-achieving, second-grade readers.” Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 88, 18–37. 

Brownell, R. (Ed). (2000). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test manual 

(3rd ed). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. 

Carrell, P. L. (1985). “Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure.” 

TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752. 

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1996). Oral Written and Language Scales. Princeton, NJ: 

Pearson Education. 

Cheek, E. H., & Lindsey, J. D. (1994). “The effects of two methods of reading 

instruction on urban adults’ word identification and comprehension 

abilities.” Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 11(1), 14–19. 

Chen, H. C., & Graves, M. (1995). “Effects of previewing and providing 

background knowledge.” TESOL Quarterly, 29, 663–682. 

Clark, D., & Uhry, J. (1995). Dyslexia Theory and Practice of Remedial 

Instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: York Press. 

Condelli, L., & Wrigley, H. (2004). Identifying Promising Literacy Interventions 

for Adult ESL Literacy Students: A Review of the Literature. 

Washington DC: American Institutes for Research.

Condelli, L., Wrigley. H., Yoon. K., Cronen, S., & Seburn, M. (2003). What 

Works Study for Adult ESL Literacy Students. Washington DC: U.S. 

Department of Education (draft, not released).

Diones, R., Spiegel, S., & Flugman, B. (1999). Crossroads Café Impact 

Evaluation Study. New York: City Univ. of New York. Center for 

Advanced Study in Education. 

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1997). The Gillingham Manual (8th ed.).

Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service. 

Hartel, J., Lowry, B., & Hendon, W. (2006). Sam and Pat. Boston: 

Thompson/Heinle. 

Hopkins, K. H. (1998). Educational and Psychological Measurement and 

Evaluation (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 

Kavenaugh, J. (1991). The Language Continuum From Infancy to Literacy. 

Baltimore: York Press.
xvii 

Rich, R., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). “Teaching text comprehension strategies to 

adult poor readers.” Reading and Writing, 5, 387–402. 

Roberts, R., Cheek, E., & Mumm, R. (1994). “Group intervention and reading 

performance in a medium-security prison facility.” Journal of Offender 

Rehabilitation, 20(3/4), 97–116. 

Sabatini, J. P. & Bruce, K. (in press). Study and Reading Aid (SARA): Technical 

Guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 

St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., Murray, S., Deck, D, & Nickel, P. (1995). 

National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final 

Report. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates Inc.

St. Pierre, R., Ricciuti, A., Tao, F., Creps, C., Swartz, J., Lee, W., Parsad, A., & 

Rimdzius, T. (2003). Experimental Research Design Study of the Even 

Start Family Literacy Program: Final report. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Abt Associates Inc.

Torgesen, J., et al. (2006). National Assessment of Title I Interim Report—

Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from A 

Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. 

Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of 

Education Web site: 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Statistics retrieved from 

http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OVAE/NRS on January 28, 2010. 

Wilson, B., & Schupack, H. (1997). Reading, Writing and Spelling: The 

Multisensory Structured Language Approach. Baltimore: The 

International Dyslexia Association. 

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Examiner’s Manual: 

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing. 

Wrigley, H., Richer, E., Martinson, K., Kubo, H., & Strawn, J. (2003). “The 

language of opportunity: Expanding employment prospects for adults with 

limited English skills.” CLASP Policy Brief, 2.