No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation

House, Ernest R.; Glass, Gene V.; McLean, Leslie D.; Walker, Decker F.

doi:10.17763/haer.48.2.j2167r4594027x87

Cited by 161 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In view of the problems encountered in previous studies which attempted to compare different instructional settings and subsequent outcomes (Bond & Dykstra, 1967;House, Glass, McLean, & Walker, 1978), accurate identification of instruction was a major concern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's Concepts of the Nature and Purpose of Reading in Different Instructional Settings

Freppon

1991

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the influence that both instruction and the developmental stage of learning to read have on the reading concepts of 24 first graders randomly selected from two skill-based and two literature-based classrooms. A multi-step process providing quantitative and qualitative data was used in identifying the two skill-based and two literature-based classrooms. Controls were provided for variables known to impact children's reading concepts such as grade level, reading ability, socioeconomic status, and gender. Three measures producing quantitative and qualitative data were used to examine the children's reading concepts. Results indicated that the two groups of children were similar in some reading concepts. Both the skill-based and literature-based students exhibited a high interest in learning and knowing words and in phonics or decoding. Findings also indicated that the two groups were different. The literature group differed from the skill group in their heightened metacognitive understandings, their knowledge and use of varied reading strategies, and their view of reading as a meaning-making, language-like process. Statistically significant differences were also found for the literature group in their more frequent rejection of passages of incomprehensible print and in their use of a balance of cues in oral reading. Additionally, although the literature group attempted to sound out words less often, they achieved a success rate of correctly sounding out words of 53% compared to 32% by the skill group.The present quasi-experimental study was designed to shed light on the influence that instruction and the developmental stage of learning to read have on first graders' reading concepts. Of central concern in this study was documentation of similarities and differences in the reading concepts of children who were in different instructional settings and in a similar developmental stage of learning to read. Reading research lacks studies clearly aimed at teasing apart the influence of read- 140Journal of Reading Behavior ing instruction, identified in the present study as the instructional settings shaped by teachers' theoretical orientations, and the influence of the developmental stage of learning to read, identified in the present study as reading ability.The current study increases understanding of the influence of reading instruction and the developmental stage of learning to read by providing descriptive data to answer the following questions: (a) Do children from literature-based and skillbased instructional settings differ in their concepts of reading? and (b) If the children differ in their concepts of reading, to what extent and in what ways do they differ? The intervening variables known to affect reading schemata such as grade level, reading ability, socioeconomic status, and gender were controlled in this investigation. Background

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's Concepts of the Nature and Purpose of Reading in Different Instructional Settings

Freppon

1991

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 2 show comparable data for what we call the "conservative" analysis. This analysis is conservative in the sense that it eliminates (House et al, 1978a); they will not be repeated here. Use of WRAT as a covariate has been objected to on grounds that it is not, as logically required, antecedent to treatment (Becker & Carnine, Ref. Note 1) --that is, the WRAT, though nominally a pretest, was in fact administered at a time when at least one of the models had already purportedly taught a significant amount of the content touched on by the WRAT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirically, child-centered approaches have been unable to demonstrate any off-setting advantages to compensate for the~ poor showing in teaching the three R's. House et al (1978a) have argued that the selection of measures used in the Follow Through evaluation did not give child-centered approaches adequate opportunity to demonstrate their effects. This may be true to a degree, but it is certainly not true that child-centered approaches had no opportunity to demonstrate effects relevant to their purposes.…”

Section: What Do the Results Mean?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A constructive look at follow through results

Bereiter

Kurland

1981

Interchange

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…House's critiques of the experimental approaches used in the Sesame Street evaluation, the Follow Through studies, and the evaluations of Jesse Jackson' s programs come to mind (see, for example, House, 2001;House, Glass, McLean, and Walker, 1978;Wisler, Burns, and Iwamoto, 1978;House, 2001;Wikipedia, 2006). The magnificent analyses by Campbell and Erlebacher (1970) of how regression artifacts mistakenly made Head Start look ineffective in the Westinghouse-Ohio study are cited even today as relevant.…”

Section: What To Do: Appropriate Methods and The Need For Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking at the evidence: What variations in practice might indicate

Datta¹

2007

New Drctns Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lois-ellin DattaMight variations in the practice of evaluation constitute evidence that can inform policies on methodology for federally sponsored evaluation? In 1993, Wye and Sonnichsen examined evaluation in the federal government, looking at changes in evaluation resources, evaluation mandates, and evaluation methods across three types of federal agencies and the influences on these changes. Now, almost fifteen years later, this chapter asks again, "Do federal agencies differ in their approaches to evaluation design for assessments of program and policy effectiveness? If so, why?" Data suggest that federal agencies probably differ in how they approach evaluation designs, although the data are less than ideal for answering the question. Some of the reasons for these differences seem good indeed. Other reasons may ill-serve evaluation and the intended beneficiaries of the programs. To improve use of appropriate methods, the American Evaluation Association or other organizations concerned with evaluation should monitor what is going on in the federal evaluations, heartily applauding sound practice and vigorously blowing the whistle, preferably prospectively, on dubious methodologies. Many thanks to Stephanie Shipman, who has studied federal evaluation policies for almost twenty-five years, for her helpful comments and suggestions; Valerie Caracelli, her equally experienced colleague; Jules Marquardt; Ben Allen; and the reviewers of the draft chapter. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of these evaluators.

show abstract

No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation

Abstract: A distinguished panel examines in depth the Abt Associates, Inc. findings on the effec tiveness of Project follow Through. This panel disputes the report's conclusion that so-called "basic skills" approaches to the schooling of poor children are superior to other methods.

Cited by 161 publications

References 3 publications

Children's Concepts of the Nature and Purpose of Reading in Different Instructional Settings

Children's Concepts of the Nature and Purpose of Reading in Different Instructional Settings

A constructive look at follow through results

Looking at the evidence: What variations in practice might indicate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About