Reading Growth with Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content: A Study of Grades 6–8 Multilingual Learners Click here to learn more about Bridges. Click here to contact us.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................iii Key Findings........................................................................................................................iv Overview............................................................................................................................. 2 Understanding the Learners................................................................................................. 2 Study Summary and What It Means for ML Classrooms......................................................... 5 How the Study Was Conducted............................................................................................ 7 Timeline ................................................................................................................................. 8 How Reading Growth Was Measured ....................................................................................... 8 How We Collected Student Data ............................................................................................. 9 Participants ............................................................................................................................ 9 Initial Reading Levels .............................................................................................................10 Student Demographics ..........................................................................................................10 How We Created Comparable Student Groups .......................................................................11 Student Participation Over Time .............................................................................................12 Results ..............................................................................................................................14 Who Completed the Study......................................................................................................14 Reading Skills Level Growth....................................................................................................14 Comparing Bridges to Non-Bridges Students’ Reading Growth .................................................15 Summary of Results ...............................................................................................................22 What We Learned ...............................................................................................................................24 Considerations and Next Steps ..............................................................................................24 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................24 Evidence Summary ................................................................................................................24 Reading Growth from the Beginning to the End of the School Year ............................................25 References..........................................................................................................................................26
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs iii INTRODUCTION This report shares findings from a study evaluating Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content, an instructional program created to help multilingual learners and striving readers in grades 6–8 improve their reading skills. Instead of randomly assigning students to groups, this quasi-experimental study compared groups that were already formed (such as different classes or schools), making it possible to measure the impact of the program in real-world learning environments. The study examined reading growth across grade levels and proficiency groups, comparing treatment and control groups to assess the program’s overall impact. Results are organized to show how the intervention influenced students’ reading skill development and to highlight instructional factors that supported success. The sections that follow summarize the study’s key findings, design, results, and implications for classroom practice.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs iv KEY FINDINGS This section summarizes the major outcomes of a quasi-experimental study conducted during the 2024–2025 school year, evaluating the effectiveness of Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content in improving reading skills among multilingual learners in grades 6–8. Summary of Major Findings • Significant reading growth: Students who received instruction incorporating Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content demonstrated statistically significant gains in reading skills from fall to spring compared to peers receiving traditional instruction. • Comparable starting points: Treatment and control groups began the study with nearly identical initial reading levels (mean difference <1 point), confirming a fair and valid comparison across conditions. • Positive outcomes across subgroups: The treatment group outperformed the control group across sex and race. Notably, students eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch made greater gains than their peers in the control group, indicating stronger effects among economically disadvantaged learners. • Consistent growth across grade levels: Reading gains were observed in grades 6, 7, and 8, with results for grades 6 and 8 mirroring the overall trend, and grade 7 showing a smaller, but still positive effect. • Equitable and replicable impact: Results indicate that the Bridges program was equally effective across diverse student populations, supporting its use in inclusive middle school literacy instruction. • Evidence-based instructional value: Findings align with current research emphasizing structured, language-rich interventions as a means of supporting decoding and comprehension growth among middle school multilingual learners. Conclusion Together, these findings demonstrate that Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content effectively supports reading development and equitable literacy growth among middle school multilingual learners. The consistency of gains across grades and subgroups underscores the program’s potential as a research-based model for improving language and literacy outcomes in diverse classrooms.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 2 OVERVIEW SEG Measurement conducted a study of the effectiveness of Vista’s Bridges to Literature and Content for improving the reading skills of middle school multilingual (ML) students. We found that ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges achieved significantly greater growth in reading skills than a comparable group of students receiving traditional instruction (“business as usual”). The first part of this document describes the intervention, the design of the study, research questions addressed, and the data collection methods. The second part of the document presents the sampling procedures and results of the analyses conducted to answer the research questions. For the first question, we examined the growth in reading skills achieved by ML students who received instruction using Bridges (treatment group) from the beginning to the end of the school year. For the second question, we compared the growth achieved by the treatment group receiving instruction incorporating Bridges to a comparable group of ML students (control group) receiving traditional instruction not including Bridges. The third question compared the treatment and control groups with respect to sex, race, and economic status, to determine if Bridges was particularly effective for any specific group. A summary and conclusions are presented in the final section of the document. UNDERSTANDING THE LEARNERS Research has established that children who have difficulty reading at the end of first grade rarely catch up by the end of elementary school (Torgesen, 2004; Francis et al., 1996; Juel, 1988; Shaywitz et al., 1999; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998). Digging deeper, findings reveal that when students do not master foundational skills early on (by third grade), there is a long-term negative impact on their reading ability and overall academic success. Early intervention is a research-proven effective measure for reducing—and sometimes altogether preventing—reading disabilities for students at risk of reading failure (Connor et al., 2014; Gersten et al., 2008). Acquiring reading skills can be particularly challenging for students for whom English is not their first language. One out of every ten students is classified as ML at some point during their K-12 schooling (U.S. Department of Education (DOE), 2018). Research has shown not only that ML status is associated with lower academic expectations from teachers and the students themselves (Kanno & Kangas, 2014), but that it also corresponds to a lower likelihood of taking general and advanced courses in core subjects (Estrada, 2014; Umansky, 2016a, 2018). This contributes to lower academic achievement (Umansky, 2016b). In terms of academic growth, Soland and Sandilos (2020) found that students classified as English language learners (ELLs) at any point in their academic career have lower achievement than their non-ELL peers.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 3 One out of every ten students is classified as ML at some point during their K–12 schooling (U.S. Department of Education (DOE), 2018). Middle School Readers The reading research addressing the broader grade 6–8 population is instructive for understanding reading skills development for MLs. Reading proficiency in middle school hinges on a constellation of interrelated sub-skills—decoding (accurate word recognition), vocabulary depth, fluency, comprehension, and disciplinary literacy. Recent empirical work (2015–2025) paints a mixed picture, with continued support for the importance of foundational skills, but less convergence on how best to accelerate growth once students reach grades 6–8. Research shows that many middle schoolers continue to struggle with automatic decoding of multisyllabic words. Wang et al. (2019) found that weak decoding limits comprehension growth, creating a developmental bottleneck. Similarly, Daniel et al. (2022) reported that word-reading skill accounted for 39% of comprehension gains, with little progress among students below the decoding threshold—underscoring the need for explicit word-level instruction before higher-order interventions in grades 6–8. Vocabulary knowledge continues to expand rapidly in adolescence and predicts reading outcomes above decoding. Reed, Petscher, and Foorman’s (2016) study of 3,000 U.S. grades 6–10 students found that vocabulary accounted for 11% to 31% of the variance in comprehension, dwarfing spelling and decoding once threshold levels were met. Reed et al. cautioned that their design was correlational, tempering causal claims. Research shows that many middle schoolers continue to struggle with automatic decoding of multisyllabic words. A meta-analytic synthesis by Steinle, Stevens, and Vaughn (2021) aggregated 32 fluency experiments with struggling readers in grades 6–12. Strong effects were found for oralreading rate (g=0.46), but transfer to comprehension was small. Fewer than half of the studies (38%) used true control groups, a limitation the authors flagged. Conversely, a recent study (NWEA, 2023) reported large comprehension gains from a technologyassisted fluency protocol.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 4 Middle school readers who are acquiring English face a steep climb. NAEP Progress data from 2022 reveal a 39-point gap for eighth-grade MLs compared to their non-ML peers. Barnes et al. (2024) conducted a multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing tutor-delivered versus computer-delivered inferencing instruction for 486 students in grades 6–8 with persistent comprehension deficits. Both versions produced modest but significant gains on standardized inference measures (d≈0.23), with no added benefit for human tutoring. At the school level, Stevens, Murray, Scammacca, Haager, and Vaughn (2022) tested a year-long professional development (PD) model across six US middle schools. Students in PD schools outperformed controls on main-idea writing (ES=0.29), but not on broad comprehension. Content-area interventions seek to integrate comprehension with subject learning. The Swanson et al. (2017) randomized study of an implementation of the Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text (PACT) routine with 78 eighth grade social studies classes reported strong improvements in content knowledge (d=0.35) and content-specific comprehension (d=0.59), though standardized comprehension gains were negligible (d=0.10). Middle School MLs Middle school readers who are acquiring English face a steep climb. National Association of Education Progress (NAEP) data from 2022 reveal a 39-point gap for eighth-grade MLs compared to their non-ML peers. In a two-year, multisite RCT of 340 students in grades 6–7, Capin et al. (2024) found that using an extensive decoding and fluency program for MLs, treated students outperformed controls on word-reading accuracy (Hedges g≈0.32), but showed no differential gains on standardized comprehension measures. Students entering the study at the lowest vocabulary quartile derived minimal benefit. These findings underscore that vocabulary breadth is a strong gatekeeper for ML adolescents. Lesaux, Kieffer, Kelley, and Harris (2014) studied 2,082 sixth graders over 20 weeks using an academic vocabulary curriculum. Students in the intervention classrooms made strong gains in word knowledge and modest improvements in comprehension. Similarly, Cho, Kim, and Jeong (2021) reviewed 38 studies of multilingual learners and found that basic reading skills instruction produced meaningful effects, especially in small-and mediumsized groups (students). Pull-out phonics blocks alone showed weaker results, and few studies focused specifically on grades 6–8.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 5 STUDY SUMMARY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR ML CLASSROOMS Foundational word-reading accuracy remains a gatekeeper for middle school students. The research on fluency and comprehension interventions offer mixed results, showing greater success for students with stronger entry skills. There is some suggestion in the literature that fluency deficits should be closed first. To achieve stronger comprehension gains. Overall, when providing instruction over the full range of literacy skills, it may be beneficial to screen for and remediate decoding until students surpass threshold benchmarks, to continue to teach morphology and vocabulary explicitly within content units and to increase focus on comprehension as foundational skills improve. Taken as a whole, the studies examining ML middle school students are consistent with the conclusions for the broader population: foundational decoding matters. At the same time, the studies raise an ML-specific caution: Unless academic vocabulary and oral language are addressed concurrently, decoding gains may stall before translating into comprehension growth. The continuing need for ML English language instruction at the middle school level has led to the development of several products and services to help MLs develop language skills. Among those products is Bridges, which is the focus of this study. This study is the story of a successful intervention incorporating Bridges to achieve substantial growth in reading skills for middle school students whose first language is not English. ML students in classes receiving instruction that included Bridges achieved substantial levels of reading skill growth exceeding typical levels of growth for ML students, and at levels similar to their non-ML peers in grades 6, 7, and 8. The Bridges Program Bridges is a comprehensive literacy program created for multilingual/English learners and striving readers. The program builds language and reading proficiency through activities, engaging texts, and content-driven lessons. It provides a variety of print and digital classroom resources that provide support and motivation, as well as tools for teachers to assess ongoing learning progress, discover skills gaps, and personalize instruction. Bridges is designed to ensure proficiency in vocabulary, phonics, reading, listening, speaking, writing, and grammar skills and to promote academic language development and writing skills. The program engages students with motivating literary texts and informational texts in science, social studies, math, and the arts, and helps students access grade-level content to prepare them for mainstream classes. Bridges aligns with the WIDA, CA ELD, TX TEKS, CCSS (ELA and Math), NGSS (Science), NCSS (Social Studies), and CEFR (ELT/International) standards.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 6 Study Ques ons The study posed three questions to guide the collection of evidence about the effectiveness of Bridges: 1. Do grade 6–8 ML students receiving instruc on incorpora ng Bridges (treatment group) show significant growth in English reading skills over the course of a school year? What is the magnitude of the growth achieved? 2. Do grade 6–8 ML students receiving instruc on incorpora ng Bridges (treatment group) achieve greater growth in English reading skills than ML students provided with tradi onal instruc on without Bridges (control group)? (main effects) 3. Do grade 6–8 ML students in specific popula on subgroups show greater growth in English reading skills when receiving instruc on incorpora ng Bridges (treatment group) than the level of growth achieved by a comparable group of students in those popula on subgroups receiving instruc on NOT incorpora ng Bridges (i.e., following tradi onal instruc onal prac ce) (comparison group)? (Interac on effects) If students using Bridges improve their English reading skills and improve their skills over and above students not using Bridges, then we have evidence that Bridges is e ective.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 7 HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED A quasi-experimental design was used to answer the research questions posed. The design compares the reading skills growth of ML students in the treatment group receiving instruction incorporating Bridges to the reading skills growth of ML students in the comparison group receiving instruction without Bridges. Using ANCOVA, we can compare the reading skills spring posttest scores (dependent variable) achieved by students in the treatment group (independent variable) and the control group (independent variable) and adjust for the fall pretest scores (covariate). The extent to which students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges not only achieve significant growth in English reading skills, but also achieve significant growth in English reading skills beyond a control group of comparable students receiving instruction using traditional practices, is evidence of Bridges’ effectiveness. If students using Bridges improve their English reading skills and improve their skills over and above students not using Bridges, then we have evidence that Bridges is effective. The figure below illustrates the study’s quasi-experimental design, showing how treatment and control groups were assessed before and after instruction. Figure 1 Bridges E ectiveness Design iReady Reading Skills Pos est iReady Reading Skills Pos est Instruc on with Bridges Instruc on Without Bridges iReady Reading Skills Pretest iReady Reading Skills Pretest Treatment Group Control Group
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 8 As shown, both groups completed iReady Reading Skills pretests and posttests, allowing researchers to measure the impact of the Bridges instructional program compared with traditional classroom practice. ML students in classes receiving instruction that included Bridges achieved substantial levels of reading skill growth exceeding typical levels of growth for ML students, and at levels similar to their non-ML peers in grades 6, 7, and 8. Se ng The study was conducted in a district serving a diverse population of multilingual learners in grades 6–8. The district includes both urban and rural schools, and includes a wide range of student language backgrounds and socioeconomic levels. The Bridges to Literature and Content program was implemented in middle school classrooms as part of regular English language development and literacy instruction. Teachers participated in training sessions on using Bridges materials and instructional routines. Instruction was delivered during the 2024–2025 academic year under normal classroom conditions, without additional interventions or staffing support. Timeline The study occurred over the 2024–2025 school year. The district administered the iReady Reading Skills assessment at the beginning and end of the school year to all students. The iReady assessment is widely used nationally and has high levels of reliability and validity. The fall 2024 student scores for the assessment served as the pretest for the study; the spring 2025 student scores for the assessment served as the posttest for the study. In the fall of 2024, the district provided SEG Measurement with a data file that included the fall 2024 iReady assessment results for all students in the district in grades 6–8. The district also provided a listing for the classes in the treatment group using Bridges. In the spring of 2025, the district provided a similar data file containing the spring 2025 iReady assessment results. How Reading Growth Was Measured The iReady Reading Skills assessment, published by Curriculum Associates, was used as the measure of English reading skills. The (single form) reliability for the iReady Reading assessment in the middle school band is at or above .90. The test-retest reliability is reported in the mid-.80s to high-.80s. The iReady Reading assessment demonstrates strong validity. Curriculum Associates describes the test as “grounded in research, informed by experts, and proven to work,”
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 9 noting that the items are built to measure the reading domains most predictive of secondary-level success in reading and aligned to state standards. The publisher reports robust correlations between mid-year Diagnostic scores and end-ofyear state summative exams. The iReady Reading assessment is reported on a scale ranging from 100–800, covering grades K through 12, and provides an overall score and several subtest scores. However, the subtests are shorter and end up being less reliable. For that reason, this study used the overall language score as the outcome measure. The extent to which students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges not only achieve significant growth in English reading skills, but also achieve significant growth in English reading skills beyond a control group of comparable students receiving instruction using traditional practices, is evidence of Bridges’ e ectiveness. How We Collected Student Data SEG merged the two files from the district to create the files used for data analysis. The files indicated whether students received instruction incorporating Bridges, along with their grade level, sex, ethnicity, race, an indication of whether the student was eligible for free lunch (as an indicator of economic level), and a unique student identifying number. Par cipants We used a matched group sampling model for this study. Given that random sampling is often not possible (as was the case for this study), an alternative is to create matched groups. The sampling model is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 Sampling Approach Popula on (Sampling Pool; All ML Students) Matched Groups (Propensity Score Matching) Final Analy c Sample (A er A ri on)
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 10 The sample of students participating in this study was drawn from the fall 2024 data file provided by the district containing the population of grades 6–8 students (sampling pool). There were 835 valid students classified as ML in the sampling pool. This included approximately 530 valid ML student records in the treatment group receiving instruction incorporating Bridges and 305 valid ML student records in the comparison group receiving traditional instruction. These two groups served as the pool of students available for matched group sampling. A profile of these pools is provided in Table 1, including the initial ability level of both pools as measured by the fall 2024 iReady scores, sex, race, and economic status. The racial classification of the ML population was fairly homogenous. Approximately 95% of the students were classified as White. The remaining 5% were collapsed into a single category of “non-White.” Ini al Reading Levels Before matching, students in the Bridges (treatment) group began the year with slightly higher reading scores than students in the control group. Table 1 Average Ini al Reading Scores for Students Before Matching Group Number of Students (N) Average Initial Score (Mean) Score Spread (SD) Control 530 518.35 60.47 Treatment 305 541.55 55.00 Total 835 526.82 59.56 These baseline di erences were expected and were addressed through statistical matching to ensure comparable groups for analysis. Student Demographics Students in both groups were similar in gender balance and socioeconomic background, with slightly more boys than girls, and about half of students qualifying for free or reducedcost lunch.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 11 Table 2 Student Demographics for All Participants Before Matching Characteristic Control N Treatment N Total Sex Boys 296 166 462 Girls 234 139 373 Total 530 305 835 Race White 502 287 789 Non-White 28 18 46 Total 530 305 835 Free Lunch Eligibility Not Eligible 246 146 392 Eligible 284 159 443 Total 530 305 835 The demographic profile shows that both groups were comparable overall. Although most students identified as White, the study included a smaller group of racially diverse students representative of the district population. How We Created Comparable Student Groups Given that random sampling is often not possible (as was the case for this study), an alternative is to create matched groups. For everyone from the treatment group pool, an individual from the control group pool who is similar in ability and background is selected. We created matched treatment and control groups using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), a statistical technique that permits matching based on several variables. We examined the statistical relationship between study group membership on the one hand, and initial reading ability (iReady Reading assessment pretest scores), sex, race, and free or reduced-cost lunch eligibility on the other (using logistic regression). We combined the results across the set of test scores and background characteristics in relationship to study group membership into a single number, a propensity score. These PSM scores could then be used to balance, or match, the two study groups based on the characteristics mentioned. For everyone from the treatment group pool, an individual from the control group pool who was similar in ability and background was selected. This was done until a match was found for each treatment group pool member (or until we found that there was no match for a treatment group pool member). To be considered a match, the propensity scores for the two students in the potential matched pair were required to be within 2% of each other. The matched group of students became the final matched treatment and control group sample for the study. There were a total
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 12 of 835 students in grades 6–8 included in the PSM analysis. This included 530 students from the initial control group pool and 305 from the initial treatment group pool. For each member of the 305 treatment group student pool, a matching control group member was sought. The matching procedure identified 502 matched treatment-comparison pairs, consisting of 251 treatment group students and 251 control group students. Student Par cipa on Over Time During the study, a small number of students were unable to complete the spring 2025 reading posttest because they moved or were absent during testing. In total, 41 students (8%) did not have posttest scores available. Attrition was nearly the same across both groups—7% in the control group and 9% in the Bridges group—and was well within accepted research guidelines (ESSA, 2020). The remaining 461 students made up the final analysis group, and the results for these students are shown below. Students who completed both the pretest and posttest began the study with nearly identical reading scores, showing that the two groups remained comparable at the start of the study. The table below presents the initial reading scores for students who completed both the pretest and posttest, showing that the treatment and control groups began the study at nearly identical levels of reading proficiency. Table 3 Average Initial Reading Scores of Students Who Completed the Study Group Number of Students (N) Average Initial Score (Mean) Score Spread (SD) Control 228 532.37 44.82 Treatment 233 533.18 52.92 Total 461 532.78 49.03 These results confirm that students who remained in the study all started at similar reading levels, ensuring that any differences observed later reflect the impact of the Bridges program rather than preexisting skill gaps. Students who completed the study were evenly distributed across sex, race, and socioeconomic background, indicating that the treatment and control groups were similar after accounting for attrition.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 13 Table 4 Demographic Profile of Students Who Completed the Study Characteristic Control Group (N) Bridges Group (N) Total Students Sex Boys 122 125 247 Girls 106 108 214 Total 228 233 461 Race White 216 218 434 Non- White 12 15 27 Total 228 233 431 Free Lunch Eligibility Not Eligible 110 114 224 Eligible 118 119 237 Total 228 233 461 The comparable demographic profile of the two groups strengthens the reliability of the study’s findings by showing that results were not influenced by differences in student characteristics.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 14 RESULTS Who Completed the Study 461 students were identified for the final analysis sample after accounting for attrition, 233 treatment and 228 control. Of these students, 188 (41%) were enrolled in grade 6, 82 (18%) in grade 7, and 191 (41%) in grade 8. Reading Skills Level Growth The treatment and control groups began the study with nearly identical reading levels. Average scores differed by less than one point (treatment=533.18; control=532.37), a difference that was not statistically significant. This small gap—less than two hundredths of a standard deviation—meets the ESSA (What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and Schneider et al. (2007) guidelines for valid group comparisons. The chart below shows reading growth for students in the Bridges treatment group from fall to spring, based on iReady reading assessment results. Question 1: Do grade 6-8 ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges (treatment group) show significant growth in English reading skills over the course of a school year? What is the magnitude of the growth achieved? Students showed clear improvement over the course of the year, with mean reading scores rising from 533 in the fall to 551 in the spring—a 17-point gain that reflects meaningful growth in reading proficiency for multilingual learners using Bridges. To answer question 1, we compared the growth in reading skills from the beginning to the end of the year achieved by the treatment group composed of ML students who received instruction incorporating Bridges. The basis for comparison were the beginning and end of year iReady Reading Skills assessment. These results are summarized and illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 5. Table 5 Reading Skills Growth for the Bridges Treatment Group iReady Reading Skills Pretest and Posttest Scores Test Occasion N Mean SD Fall iReady Pretest 233 533.18 52.915 Spring iReady Posttest 233 550.55 60.749 Students in the Bridges program demonstrated clear reading growth from fall to spring, with average scores increasing by more than 17 points on the iReady assessment. This represents measurable progress over the school year for multilingual learners participating in Bridges.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 15 The average (mean) iReady Reading skills pretest score for the 233 students in the treatment group was 533.18 (SD=52.92). The average (mean) iReady Reading skills posttest score for the treatment group was 550.55 (SD=60.75). (t=6.6; p<.001) The 17.37-point gain represents an effect size of .29 (Cohen’s d). These gains are an indicator of the reading growth made by students receiving instruction that incorporated Bridges. Comparing Bridges Students and Non-Bridges Students’ Reading Growth Question 2: Do grade 6–8 ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges (treatment group) achieve greater growth in English reading skills than ML students provided with traditional instruction, without Bridges (control group)? (main effects) The first question established that grade 6–8 ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges significantly improve their reading skills. However, without a control group for comparison, it is difficult to determine if the reading skills growth seen was the result of the treatment or other factors, including expected student growth, regardless of the instructional treatment. A more complete picture of effectiveness emerges through the treatment-control group comparison. For this reason, the second question compares the level of growth for the treatment group using Bridges to that of a control group following traditional practice. Including the control group in the design enables us to see how Bridges “stacks up” against current practice. The following analysis compares the reading growth of students who used the Bridges program with that of students who received traditional instruction, controlling for their initial reading levels. Table 6 ANCOVA Results Comparing Bridges and Control Group Reading Scores (Adjusted for Initial Reading Level) Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 837622.79a 2 418811.40 233.70 <.001 Intercept 28370.29 1 28370.00 15.83 <.001 iReady Fall 2024 Assessment 818523.77 1 818523.76 456.75 <.001 Study Group 17081.513 1 17081.51 9.53 .002 Error 820767.91 458 1792.07 Total 138176294.00 461 Corrected Total 1658390.669 460 Results show that students who participated in the Bridges program scored significantly higher on the iReady Reading posttest than those in the control group, even after accounting for initial reading ability (p=.002).
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 16 To better explain the size of this difference, the adjusted mean posttest scores for both groups are shown below. Table 7 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores for Bridges and Control Groups Study Group N Mean SD Control 228 537.68 58.74 Treatment 233 550.55 60.75 Total 461 544.18 60.04 Students who used the Bridges program had higher adjusted reading scores (M=550.55) than those in the control group (M=537.68), reflecting the significant advantage observed in the previous analysis. Overall Reading Growth Results (All Grades Combined) Question 2 addresses the question of whether ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges (treatment group) achieve greater growth in English reading skills than ML students provided with traditional instruction, without Bridges (control group). The reading skills growth achieved by the treatment group (composed of students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges) was compared to the level of reading skills growth achieved by the control group. Using ANCOVA, we compared the reading skills posttest scores (dependent variable) achieved by students in the treatment group (independent variable) and the reading skills posttest scores achieved by the control group (independent variable), adjusting for the pretest scores (covariate). The treatment group (mean=550.55) outperformed the control group receiving traditional instruction (mean=537.68) (F=9.53; df=1/461; p=.002). Reading Growth by Grade Level (Grades 6–8) We then examined the outcomes by grade level. ANCOVA was used to examine the differences in reading skills assessment posttest scores (dependent outcome variable) between the treatment and control groups (independent predictor variable), adjusting for student initial reading ability level (reading skills assessment pretest scores) (covariate). The sample size for this study (total analytic sample N=461) was designed to evaluate the performance of the full group of students. While it is instructive to review the results for specific grade levels, the results with sample sizes fewer than 100 should be reviewed with caution.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 17 The results for grades 6 and 8 were comparable to the larger total group results, while the grade 7 results showed a virtual tie between the treatment and control group performance. Again, caution should be used here given the smaller grade 7 sample (analytic sample n=82). The results by grade level are illustrated in Table 8. Table 8 Comparison of Bridges and Control Group Reading Scores by Grade Level: Mean iReady Reading Skills Posttest Scores, Adjusted for Initial Reading Level Grade Treat N Treat Mean Treat SD Control N Control Mean Control SD F Significance Grade 6 95 534.53 61.77 93 516.25 42.77 F=4.11 p=.044 Grade 7 40 543.50 66.48 42 543.71 46.00 F=1.50 p=.225 Grade 8 98 568.96 52.32 93 556.38 70.04 F=4.21 p= 042 Total 233 537.68 58.74 228 550.55 60.75 F=9.53 p=.002 Students in the Bridges program scored higher than those in the control group in grades 6 and 8, while grade 7 results were nearly identical, reflecting the same pattern seen in the overall analysis. Reading Growth by Student Background Factors Question 3: Do grade 6–8 ML students in specific population subgroups show greater growth in English reading skills when receiving instruction incorporating Bridges (treatment group) than the level of growth achieved by a comparable group of students in those population subgroups receiving instruction NOT incorporating Bridges (i.e., following traditional instructional practice) (comparison group)? (Interaction e ects) We then looked to see if the treatment was more effective for any of the study’s designated subgroups: sex, race, ethnicity, and economic status. When a treatment is not more effective for a subgroup, this indicates that the treatment is effective regardless of student background. Specifically, we used ANCOVA to examine the difference between the groups, reflecting the interaction of the treatment and control groups (independent variable), background group membership (independent variable), and end of year reading skills growth (posttest dependent variable), adjusting for any differences in the beginning of year reading skills level (pretest covariate). Comparison by Sex The main effect for study group was reconfirmed, with the treatment group using Bridges outperforming the control group (F=8.95; df=1/461; p=.003). There was no significant interaction between study group membership and student sex (F=1.52; df=1/461; p=.219).
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 18 The instruction provided to the treatment group including using Bridges was equally effective with both boys and girls. The following analysis examined whether boys or girl benefited more from participation in the Bridges program compared to traditional instruction. Table 9 ANCOVA Results Comparing Bridges and Control Groups by Sex: iReady Reading Skills Posttest Scores Adjusted for Initial Reading Level Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 840713.01 4 210178.25 117.21 <.001 Intercept 29221.73 1 29221.73 16.30 <.001 iReady Fall 2024 Assessment 788111.17 1 788111.17 439.51 <.001 Study Group 16051.79 1 16051.79 8.95 .003 Sex 400.43 1 400.43 .22 .637 Study Group Sex 2722.24 1 2722.24 1.52 .219 Error 817677.69 456 1793.15 Total 138176294.00 461 Results confirmed that students in the Bridges group outperformed those in the control group overall, but there were no significant differences between boys and girls. The program was equally effective for both sexes. The adjusted mean posttest scores by sex are shown below to illustrate how boys and girls in each group performed after instruction. Table 10 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores by Sex and Study Group Study Group Sex N Mean SD Control Girls 122 526.97 58.035 Control Boys 106 550.00 57.362 Total 228 537.68 58.735 Treatment Girls 125 546.99 60.122 Treatment Boys 108 554.67 61.488 Total 233 550.55 60.749 Total Girls 247 537.10 59.827 Total Boys 214 552.36 59.387 Total 461 544.18 60.043
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 19 Across both groups, boys scored slightly higher than girls, but the difference was not statistically significant. Bridges supported comparable reading gains for all students regardless of sex. Comparison of Reading Growth by Race/Ethnicity We examined the impact of study group by racial background. Since the ML instructional program in the district is largely comprised of Hispanic students, nearly all the students in both the treatment and control groups classified themselves as White, and in a separate question, identified themselves as coming from a Spanish-speaking background. The main effect for the study group was reconfirmed, with the treatment group using Bridges outperforming the control group (F=3.32; df=1/461; p=.069). (However, the level of statistical significance was somewhat lower due to small differences in the model construction, including for race.) There was no significant interaction observed. Reading skills growth differences between the two study groups was largely unaffected by race. Bridges was equally effective for both White and non-White students. The ANCOVA results below show whether race interacted with instructional groups to affect reading growth. Table 11 ANCOVA Results Comparing Bridges and Control Groups by Race (White/Non-White): iReady Reading Skills Posttest Scores Adjusted for Initial Reading Level Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 837982.33 4 209495.58 116.44 <.001 Intercept 27652.68 1 27652.68 15.37 <.001 iReady Fall 2024 Assessment 809738.42 1 809738.42 450.07 <.001 Study Group 5975.02 1 5975.02 3.32 .069 Race (White/Non-White) 2.97 1 2.97 .01 .968 Study Group Race (White /Non-White) 346.26 1 346.26 .19 .661 Error 820408.37 456 1799.14 Total 138176294.00 461 Although the Bridges group showed higher overall scores than the control group, there was no significant interaction between race and instructional group. The program appeared equally effective for White and non-White students. The adjusted mean posttest scores by race and study group are displayed below to illustrate these results.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 20 Table 12 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores by Race (White/Non-White) and Study Group Study Group Race N Mean SD Control Non-White 12 527.00 76.137 Control White 216 538.27 57.785 Total 228 537.68 58.735 Treatment Non-White 15 572.47 51.321 Treatment White 218 549.04 61.156 Total 233 550.55 60.749 Total Non-White 27 552.26 66.339 Total White 434 543.68 59.678 Total 461 544.18 60.043 Students from both racial groups demonstrated similar patterns of growth, indicating that Bridges supports reading progress across diverse student populations. Comparison by Economic Status The main effect for study group was reconfirmed, with the treatment group using Bridges outperforming the control group (F=9.2; df=1/461; p=.003). There was a significant interaction between study group membership and eligibility for free or reduced-cost lunch (F=4.05; df=1/461; p=.045). The pairwise comparisons revealed that students eligible for free lunch in the treatment group that received instruction using Bridges (mean=542.47) showed significantly greater growth than students eligible for free lunch in the control group receiving traditional instruction without using Bridges (mean=530.24). This 12-point difference represents an effect size of .20 (Cohen’s d). This result suggests that Bridges was more effective in providing instruction for students of lower economic status. The ANCOVA results below show whether the relationship between instructional group and reading growth differed by students’ economic status.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 21 Table 13 ANCOVA Results Comparing Bridges and Control Groups by Free or Reduced-Cost Lunch Eligibility: iReady Reading Skills Posttest Scores Adjusted for Initial Reading Level Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig Corrected Model 845175.656 4 211293.92 118.48 <.001 Intercept 25484.96 1 25484.96 14.29 <.001 iReady Fall 2024 Assessment 796670.80 1 796670.81 446.72 <.001 Study Group 16397.83 1 16397.83 9.20 .003 Free Lunch Eligibility 311.67 1 311.67 .18 .676 Study Group Free Lunch Eligibility 7222.23 1 7222.23 4.05 .045 Error 813215.04 456 1783.37 Total 138176294.00 461 The significant interaction between study group and free lunch eligibility (p=.045) indicates that Bridges was particularly effective for students from lower-income backgrounds. The adjusted mean posttest scores below show how students eligible and not eligible for free lunch performed in each group. Table 14 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores by Economic Status and Study Group Study Group Free Lunch N Mean SD Control Not Eligible 110 545.65 56.60 Control Eligible 118 530.24 59.95 Total 228 537.68 58.74 Treatment Not Eligible 114 558.98 57.97 Treatment Eligible 119 542.47 62.47 Total 233 550.55 60.75 Total Not Eligible 224 552.44 57.56 Total Eligible 237 536.38 61.41 Total 461 544.18 60.04 Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (measured here by eligibility for free lunch) in the Bridges program demonstrated greater reading growth than similar students in the control group, suggesting that Bridges may help narrow achievement gaps related to socioeconomic status.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 22 Summary of Results SEG Measurement conducted a study of the effectiveness of instruction incorporating Vista Higher Learning’s Bridges to Literature and Content, during the 2024–2025 school year. We found that Bridges effectively increased middle school (grades 6-8) ML students’ English reading skills. A group of approximately 233 ML students in the district received instruction incorporating the Bridges intervention. A comparison group of 228 ML students in the district received instruction using traditional methods, without Bridges. First, we examined the level of reading growth achieved by the treatment group using Bridges separately, as an initial picture of the level of growth achieved. The students’ reading skills were measured at the beginning of the 2024–2025 school year and the end of the 2024–2025 school year. The extent of reading skills improvement was assessed by comparing the beginning of year reading skills assessment scores to the end of year assessment scores. The growth in reading scores from the beginning to the end of the school year was statistically significant (p<.001), with an effect size of .29, or about a quarter of a standard deviation. Next, we examined how the reading skills growth rates found for the group using Bridges (treatment group) compared to the level of growth seen for the ML students in the control group (those receiving traditional instruction). The observed differences were statistically significant (p<=002), with an effect size of .21, or about a quarter of a standard deviation. While the effect size (Cohen’s d) is the most technically accurate indicator of the effect of receiving instruction using Bridges, it is helpful to examine the effect against a more familiar benchmark of practical significance: typical yearly student academic growth. Lipsey, et al (2012) pose the question, “How large is the effect of a given intervention if we think about it in terms of what it might add to a year of average academic growth …” ... students receiving instruction with Bridges instruction achieved about 1 additional year of growth than their peers receiving instruction using traditional practices (control group) did. The typical annual growth for a student in grades 6-8 at the fiftieth percentile on the iReady assessment ranges from about 9 to 12 points (Curriculum Associates, 2018). We found that students receiving instruction using Bridges showed about 13 points greater iReady growth than the control group. This suggests that students receiving instruction with Bridges (treatment group) achieved about 1 additional year of growth than their peers receiving instruction using traditional practices (control group) did.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 23 This helps put the amount of growth seen in the study in context; however, caution should be used in interpretation, as there are many factors that can affect student growth —and because the iReady benchmark gains are based on the general population, not just ML students. Based on all of the data gathered, however, we can see that the use of Bridges clearly had a significant impact on student reading scores.
© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 24 WHAT WE LEARNED Considera ons and Next Steps This study provides strong support for the effectiveness of Bridges instruction. No single study can definitively prove effectiveness, however, so additional evidence should be collected in order to fully conclude that Bridges is effective. Fortunately, this study is part of a broader research program Vista Higher Learning has undertaken to ensure that evidence regarding its educational approach and product solutions is available to educators so that they can feel comfortable using VHL products. Several studies examining VHL products have been conducted and more are in progress. Additional research examining the impact of Bridges in other settings and using other implementation models would be of value. Conclusions Instruction with Bridges was effective in improving middle school ML student English reading skills. Students who received instruction incorporating Bridges achieved substantial growth in their reading skills between the beginning and end of the school year. More importantly, when compared to a control group receiving instruction without the benefit of Bridges, the treatment group showed significantly greater growth in reading skills—an effect size of .21, or about a quarter of a standard deviation (Cohen’s d). Those findings were confirmed even when incorporating sex, race, and economic status into the model, with the treatment group still outperforming the control group. When we included economic status in the model, we also found a significant interaction, revealing that the Bridges intervention was even more effective with low-income students. We can conclude, however, based on this initial study, that providing instruction incorporating Bridges appears to be an effective solution for increasing ML middle school student reading skills. Evidence Summary Bridges users show substan al growth in reading skills above that achieved by a control group. Bridges users show substan al growth in reading skills. Bridges improved reading skills more than tradi onal instruc on among students of lower socioeconomic status.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUyNzA0NQ==