SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Synthesis reading comprehension-edmonds

•
•
A
annes86
EducationSports
1 of 40
A Synthesis of Reading Interventions and Effects on Reading Comprehension Outcomes for Older Struggling Readers Author(s): Meaghan S. Edmonds, Sharon Vaughn, Jade Wexler, Colleen Reutebuch, Amory Cable, Kathryn Klingler Tackett and Jennifer Wick Schnakenberg Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Mar., 2009), pp. 262-300 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071166 . Accessed: 13/06/2013 10:46 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SynthesisofReadingInterventionsand EffectsonReadingComprehension OutcomesforOlderStrugglingReaders ReviewofEducationalResearch Spring2009, Vol.79,No. 1,pp. 262-300 DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325998 © 2009 AERA. http://rer.aera.net MeaghanS. Edmonds,SharonVaughn,JadeWexler, ColleenReutebuch,AmoryCable,KathrynKlingler Tackett,andJenniferWickSchnakenberg UniversityofTexasatAustin Thisarticlereportsa synthesisofinterventionstudiesconductedbetween 1994 and 2004 witholderstudents(Grades6-12) withreadingdifficulties. Interventionsaddressingdecoding,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehension wereincludediftheymeasuredtheeffectsonreadingcomprehension.Twenty- ninestudieswerelocatedandsynthesized.Thirteenstudiesmetcriteriafora meta-analysis,yieldingan effectsize (ES) of0.89fortheweightedaverage of the differencein comprehensionoutcomes betweentreatmentand comparisonstudents.Word-levelinterventionswereassociated withES = 0.34incomprehensionoutcomesbetweentreatmentandcomparisonstudents. Implicationsforcomprehensioninstructionforolderstrugglingreadersare described. Keywords: reading,meta-analysis,comprehension. Althougheducatorshave historicallyemphasizedimprovingstudents'reading proficiencyintheelementaryschool years,readinginstructionforsecondarystu- dentswithreadingdifficultieshas been less prevalent.As a result,secondary studentswithreadingdifficultiesare infrequentlyprovidedreadinginstruction, thuswideningthegap betweentheirachievementand thatof theirgrade-level peers.Recentlegislation,suchas theNo ChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB; 2002), has promptedschools to improvereadinginstructionforall students,includingthose inmiddleandhighschool.Manysecondarystudentscontinuetodemonstratedif- ficultieswithreading,andeducatorscontinuetoseekinformationonbestpractices forinstructingthesestudents. The NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP) administereda read- ing assessmentin 2002 to approximately343,000 studentsin Grades 4 and 8. AccordingtotheNAEP data,therewasnosignificantchangeinprogressforstudents between1992 and 2002, and Grade 8 scores in 2003 actuallydecreased(Grigg, Daane, Jin,& Campbell,2003). TheNAEP also conducteda long-termtrendassess- mentin reading,whichdocumentedperformancefrom1971 to 2004 forstudents ages 9, 13, and 17. Althoughscores forthe 9-year-oldsshowed improvements 262 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis comparedtothescoresforthisagein1971and1999,thiswasnotthecaseforthe 13-and17-year-olds.Althoughthescoresatthe75thand90thpercentileforthe 13-year-oldssignificantlyimprovedfrom1971to2004,therewerenosignificant differencesbetweenscoresin1999and2004.Forthe17-year-olds,therewereno significantdifferencesatanyofthepercentilesselectedin2004,norweretheredif- ferencesbetweenthe1971and1999scores.Thesedatasuggestthattheeducation systemis noteffectivelypreparingsomeadolescentsforreadingsuccessandthat informationoneffectiveinstructionalpracticesisneededtoimprovethesetrends. Expectations Secondarystudentsfaceincreasingaccountabilitymeasuresalongwitha great deal ofpressureto meetthedemandsofmoredifficultcurriculaandcontent (Swanson& Hoskyn,2001).Inthepastdecade,studentshavebecomeresponsible forlearningmorecomplexcontentata rapidpacetomeetstatestandardsandto passoutcomeassessments(Woodruff,Schumaker,& Deschler,2002). Oureducationalsystemexpectsthatsecondarystudentsareabletodecodefluently andcomprehendmaterialwithchallengingcontent(Alvermann,2002).Somestrug- glingsecondaryreaders,however,lacksufficientadvanceddecoding,fluency,vocabu- lary,andcomprehensionskillstomasterthecomplexcontent(Kamil,2003). Ina climatewheremanysecondarystudentscontinuetostrugglewithreading andschoolsfaceincreasinglydifficultaccountabilitydemands,itis essentialto identifytheinstructionthatwillbenefitstrugglingsecondaryreaders.Secondary teachersrequireknowledgeofbestpracticestoprovideappropriateinstruction, preventstudentsfromfallingfartherbehind,andhelpbringstrugglingreaders closertoreadingforknowledgeandpleasure. ComprehensionResearch Theultimategoalofreadinginstructionatthesecondaryleveliscomprehension- gainingmeaningfromtext.A numberoffactorscontributetostudents'notbeing abletocomprehendtext.Comprehensioncanbreakdownwhenstudentshave problemswithone or moreofthefollowing:(a) decodingwords,including structuralanalysis;(b) readingtextwithadequatespeedandaccuracy(fluency); (c) understandingthemeaningsofwords;(d) relatingcontenttopriorknowl- edge;(e) applyingcomprehensionstrategies;and(f)monitoringunderstanding (Carlisle& Rice,2002; NationalInstituteforLiteracy,2001; RAND Reading StudyGroup,2002). Becausemanysecondaryteachersassumethatstudentswhocanreadwords accuratelycanalsocomprehendandlearnfromtextsimplybyreading,theyoften neglectteachingstudentshowtoapproachtexttobetterunderstandthecontent.In addition,becauseofincreasingaccountability,manyteachersemphasizethecon- tentwhileneglectingtoinstructstudentsonhowtoreadforlearningandunder- standing(Pressley,2000; RAND ReadingStudyGroup,2002). Finally,the readabilitylevelofsometextusedinsecondaryclassroomsmaybe toohighfor below-gradelevelreaders,andthe"unfriendliness"ofsometextcanresultincom- prehensionchallengesformanystudents(Mastropieri,Scruggs,& Graetz,2003). TheRAND ReadingStudyGroup(2002) createda heuristicforconceptual- izingreadingcomprehension.Fundamentally,comprehensionoccursthroughan interactionamongthreecriticalelements:thereader,thetext,andtheactivity.The 263 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. capacityofthereader,thevaluesascribedtotextandtextavailability,andreader's activitiesareamongthemanyvariablesthatareinfluencedanddeterminedbythe socioculturalcontextthatbothshapesandisshapedbyeachofthethreeelements. Thissynthesisaddressesseveralcriticalaspectsofthisproposedheuristic- the activityorinterventionprovidedforstudentsatriskand,whendescribedinthe study,thetextthatwas used.Because thesynthesisfocuseson intervention research,questionsaboutwhatelementsofinterventionswereassociatedwith readingcomprehensionwereaddressed.Thissynthesiswasnotdesignedtoaddress othercriticalissues,includingthevaluesandbackgroundofreadersandteachers andthecontextinwhichteachersandlearnersinteracted.Manyofthesocialand affectivevariablesassociatedwithimprovedmotivationandinterestintextfor olderreadersandhowthesevariablesinfluencedoutcomesarepartoftheheuristic ofreadingcomprehension,butwewereunabletoaddresstheminthissynthesis. RationaleandResearchQuestion Manyoftheinstructionalpracticessuggestedforpoorreaderswerederivedfrom observing,questioning,andaskinggoodandpoorreadersto"thinkaloud"while theyread(Dole,Duffy,Roehler,& Pearson,1991;Heilman,Blair,& Rupley,1998; Jimenez,Garcia,& Pearson,1995,1996).Thesereportsdescribedgoodreadersas coordinatinga setofhighlycomplexandwell-developedskillsandstrategiesbefore, during,andafterreadingso thattheycouldunderstandandlearnfromtextand rememberwhattheyread(Paris,Wasik,& Turner,1991).Whencomparedwithgood readers,poorreaderswereconsiderablylessstrategic(Paris,Lipson,& Wixson, 1983).Goodreadersusedthefollowingskillsandstrategies:(a) readingwordsrap- idlyandaccurately;(b)notingthestructureandorganizationoftext;(c) monitoring theirunderstandingwhilereading;(d) usingsummaries;(e) makingpredictions, checkingthemastheyread,andrevisingandevaluatingthemasneeded;(g)integrat- ingwhattheyknowaboutthetopicwithnewlearning;and(h)makinginferencesand usingvisualization(Jenkins,Heliotis,Stein,& Haynes,1987;Kamil,2003;Klingner, Vaughn,& Boardman,2007; Mastropieri,Scruggs,Bakken,& Whedon,1996; Pressley& Afflerbach,1995;Swanson,1999;Wong& Jones,1982). Previoussyntheseshaveidentifiedcriticalinterventionelementsforeffective readinginstructionforstudentswithdisabilitiesacrossgradelevels(e.g.,Gersten, Fuchs,Williams,& Baker,2001;Mastropierietal., 1996;Swanson,1999).For example,weknowthatexplicitstrategyinstructionyieldsstrongeffectsforcom- prehensionforstudentswithlearningdifficultiesanddisabilities(Biancarosa& Snow,2004;Gerstenetal.,2001;NationalReadingPanel[NRP],2000;RAND ReadingStudyGroup,2002;Swanson,1999).Wealsoknowthateffectivecom- prehensioninstructionintheelementarygradesteachesstudentstosummarize,use graphicorganizers,generateandanswerquestions,andmonitortheircomprehen- sion(Mastropierietal.,1996;Kamil,2004). However,despiteimprovedknowledgeabouteffectivereadingcomprehension broadly,muchlessisknownregardingeffectiveinterventionsandreadinginstruc- tionforstudentswithreadingdifficultiesinthemiddleandhighschoolgrades (Curtis& Longo,1999).Thesynthesespreviouslydiscussedfocusedonstudents identifiedforspecialeducation,examinedspecificcomponentsofreading,anddid notpresentfindingsforolderreaders.Inrecognitionofthisvoidintheresearch, thereportoncomprehensionfromtheRANDReadingStudyGroup(2002)cited 264 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis theneedforadditionalknowledgeonhowbesttoorganizeinstructionforlow- achievingstudents.Wehaveconductedthefollowingsynthesistodeterminethe outcomeofcomprehension,wordstudy,vocabulary,andfluencyinterventionson readingcomprehensionof studentsin Grades6 through12. Furthermore,we extendedthesynthesistoincludeallstrugglingreaders,notjustthosewithidenti- fiedlearningdisabilities.Weaddressedthefollowingquestion:Howdoesinterven- tionresearchon decoding,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehensioninfluence comprehensionoutcomesforolderstudents(Grades6 through12)withreading difficultiesordisabilities? Method Forthissynthesis,we conducteda comprehensivesearchof theliterature througha three-stepprocess.Themethodsdescribedbelowweredevelopedduring priorsynthesesconductedbyteammembers(Kim,Vaughn,Wanzek& Wei,2004; Wanzek,Vaughn,Wexler,Swanson,& Edmonds,2006).Wefirstconducteda com- putersearchofERIC andPsycINFOtolocatestudiespublishedbetween1994and 2004.Weselectedthelastdecadeofstudiestoreflectthemostcurrentresearchon thistopic.Descriptorsorrootformsofthosedescriptors(readingdifficult*,learn- ingdisab*,LD, mildhandi*,milddisab*readingdisab*,at-risk,high-risk,read- ing delay*,learningdelay*,strugglereader,dyslex*,read*,comprehen*, vocabulary,fluen*,word,decod*,EnglishLanguageArts)wereusedinvarious combinationstocapturethegreatestpossiblenumberofarticles.Wealsosearched abstractsfrompriorsynthesesandreviewedreferencelistsinseminalstudiesto assurethatallstudieswereidentified. Inaddition,toassurecoverageandbecausea cumulativereviewwasnotlocated inelectronicdatabasesorreferencelists,a handsearchof11majorjournalsfrom 1998through2004wasconducted.Journalsexaminedinthishandsearchincluded AnnalsofDyslexia,ExceptionalChildren,JournalofEducationalPsychology, JournalofLearningDisabilities,JournalofSpecialEducation,LearningDisability Quarterly,LearningDisabilitiesResearchand Practice,ReadingResearch Quarterly,RemedialandSpecialEducation,andScientificStudiesofReading. Studieswereselectediftheymetallofthefollowingcriteria: • Participantswerestrugglingreaders.Strugglingreadersweredefinedas lowachieversorstudentswithunidentifiedreadingdifficulties,withdys- lexia,and/orwithreading,learning,orspeechorlanguagedisabilities. Studiesalsowereincludedifdisaggregateddatawereprovidedforstrug- glingreadersregardlessofthecharacteristicsofotherstudentsinthestudy. Onlydisaggregateddataonstrugglingreaderswereusedinthesynthesis. • ParticipantswereinGrades6 through12(ages11-21).Thisgraderange wasselectedbecauseitrepresentsthemostcommongradesdescribing secondarystudents.Whena samplealsoincludedolderoryoungerstu- dentsanditcouldbedeterminedthatthesamplemeanagewaswithinthe targetedrange,thestudywasaccepted. • Studieswereacceptedwhenresearchdesignsusedtreatment-comparison, single-group,orsingle-subjectdesigns. • Interventionconsistedofanytypeofreadinginstruction,includingword study,fluency,vocabulary,comprehension,ora combinationofthese. 265 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. • The languageofinstructionwas English. • Atleastone dependentmeasureassessedone ormoreaspectsofreading. • Data forcalculatingeffectsizes wereprovidedintreatment-comparison and single-groupstudies. • Interrateragreementforarticleacceptanceorrejectionwas calculatedby dividingthenumberof agreementsby thenumberof agreementsplus disagreementsandwas computedas 95%. Data Analysis Codingprocedures.We employedextensivecodingprocedurestoorganizeperti- nentinformationfromeach study.We adaptedpreviouslydesignedcode sheets thatwere developed forpast interventionsyntheses(Kim, Vaughn,Wanzek,& Wei, 2004). The code sheet included elements specified in the What Works Clearinghouse Design and ImplementationAssessment Device (Instituteof EducationSciences, 2003), a documentused toevaluatethequalityofstudies. The code sheetwas usedtorecordrelevantdescriptivecriteriaas well as results fromeach study,includingdataregardingparticipants(e.g.,number,sex,exception- alitytype),studydesign(e.g.,numberofconditions,assignmenttocondition),spec- ificationsabout conditions (e.g., intervention,comparison), clarityof causal inference,and reportedfindings.Participantinformationwas coded using four forced-choiceitems(socioeconomicstatus,risktype,theuse ofcriteriaforclassify- ingstudentswithdisabilities,andgender)andtwoopen-endeditems(age as described intextandrisktypeas describedintext).Similarly,designinformationwas gathered usinga combinationof forced-choice(e.g., researchdesign,assignmentmethod, fidelityofimplementation)and open-endeditems(selectioncriteria).Intervention and comparisoninformationwas coded using 10 open-endeditems(e.g., siteof intervention,roleofpersonimplementingintervention,durationofintervention)as wellas a writtendescriptionofthetreatmentandcomparisonconditions. Informationon clarityofcausal inferencewas gatheredusing11 itemsfortrue experimentaldesigns(e.g., samplesizes,attrition,plausibilityofinterventioncon- taminants)and 15 itemsforquasiexperimentaldesigns(e.g., equatingprocedures, attritionrates).Additionalitemsallowedcoderstodescribethemeasuresandindi- cate measurementcontaminants.Finally,theprecisionofoutcomeforbotheffect size estimationand statisticalreportingwas coded using a seriesof 10 forced- choiceyes-noquestions,includinginformationregardingassumptionsofindepen- dence,normality,andequal variance.Effectsizeswerecalculatedusinginformation relatedto outcomemeasures,directionof effects,and readingoutcomedata for each interventionorcomparisoncondition. Afterextensivetraining(morethan10hr)ontheuse andinterpretationofitems fromthecode sheet,interraterreliabilitywas determinedbyhavingsixratersinde- pendentlycode a singlearticle.Responsesfromthesixcoderswereusedtocalcu- late thepercentageof agreement(i.e., agreementsdivided by agreementsplus disagreements).An interraterreliabilityof.85 was achieved.Teamsofthreecoded each article,comparedresults,and resolvedany disagreementsin coding,with finaldecisionsreachedbyconsensus.To assureevenhigherreliabilitythan.85 on coding,anyitemthatwas notunambiguousto coderswas discusseduntila clear codingresponsecould be determined.Finally,tworaterswhohad achieved100% 266 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis reliabilityonitemsrelatedtooutcomeprecisionanddatacalculatedeffectsizesfor eachstudy. Afterthecodinghadbeencompleted,thestudiesweresummarizedina table format.Table1 containsinformationon studydesign,sample,andintervention implementation(e.g.,durationandimplementationpersonnel).InTable2,inter- ventiondescriptionsandeffectsizesforreadingoutcomesareorganizedbyeach study'sinterventiontypeanddesign.Effectsizesand/?valuesareprovidedwhen appropriatedatawereavailable. Effectsizecalculation.Effectsizeswerecalculatedforstudiesthatprovidedade- quateinformation.Forstudieslackingdatanecessarytocomputeeffectsizes,data weresummarizedusingfindingsfromstatisticalanalysesordescriptivestatistics. Fortreatment-comparisondesignstudies,theeffectsize,d,wascalculatedas the differencebetweenthemeanposttestscoreoftheparticipantsintheintervention conditionminusthemeanposttestscoreoftheparticipantsinthecomparison conditiondividedbythepooledstandarddeviation.Forstudiesinthissynthesisthat employeda treatment-comparisondesign,effectsizescanbeinterpretedasd = 0.20 issmall,d = 0.50ismedium,andd = 0.80isa largeeffect(Cohen,1988).Effects wereadjustedforpretestdifferenceswhendatawereprovided.Forsingle-group studies,effectsizeswerecalculatedas thestandardizedmeanchange(Cooper, 1998).Outcomesfromsingle-subjectstudieswerecalculatedasthepercentageof nonoverlappingdata(PND) (Scruggs,Mastropieri,& Casto,1987).PND iscalcu- latedas thepercentageofdatapointsduringthetreatmentphasethatarehigher thanthehighestdatapointfromthebaselinephase.PND wasselectedbecauseit offereda moreparsimoniousmeansofreportingoutcomesforsingle-subjectstud- iesandprovidedcommoncriteriaforcomparingtreatmentimpact. Results DataAnalysisPlan A rangeofstudydesignsandinterventiontypeswasrepresentedinthissynthe- sis.To fullyexplorethedata,weconductedseveraltypesofanalyses.First,we synthesizedstudyfeatures(e.g.,samplesizeandstudydesign)tohighlightsimi- larities,differences,andsalientelementsacrossthecorpusofstudies.Second,we conducteda meta-analysisofa subsetoftreatment-comparisondesignstudiesto determinetheoveralleffectofreadinginterventionsonstudents'readingcompre- hension.Inadditiontoanoverallpointestimateofreadinginterventioneffects,we reportedeffectsoncomprehensionbymeasurementandinterventiontype.Last, wesynthesizedtrendsandresultsbyinterventiontypeacrossallstudies,including single-groupandsingle-subjectdesignstudies. StudyFeatures A totalof29interventionstudies,allreportedinjournalarticles,metourcrite- riaforinclusioninthesynthesis.Studiesappearedina rangeofjournals(as canbe seeninthereferencelist)andweredistributedrelativelyevenlyacrosstheyearsof interest(1994 to 2004). Each study'sdesignand samplecharacteristicsare describedinTable 1. In thefollowingsections,we summarizeinformationon (textcontinuesonp. 285) 267 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I I I- CO CO ^» If - J CO J CO ^» I II 1 |I I W) c G £ % <U <U C 52 ex, to c5 c3 ^ <S.I £ t2 e2 £ ^ s o g 6 jz M ^ &o^-s t«'~Hi_: c8 o ^ .3 2 8 2>.^ '+3^ - -C «5*2C C/5!> CO'^h<U a s E ^^^ s~ ^^? O ^- On r^ vo If II II Sfi II C O ^ O O co o ! lit! 1! fftf If 31 >, lll.il £■$§„,*%%%£%>§-Sllil ^^> I < « 2 a fi ^>< &S z < « o & cs a S ^< <^ 2 a £ g 268 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I I I •I •§ -g £ £ 8VUH C C C fli fl> V*-'VUH O « «« «« g g fl> II I I I I I - -8 % % | pi II § -a S* % .2 £»'§ .2 8 'S -a ^'S Q ~ ^t On (N 2§ §8^ ?S^ C C C ^-s C ^ W),V5 , ca ,c«<L)§ | m u ^ 1 11 |1 ill i i til I iUlitiSfiifiiiliiij I iSilSlfllelf il^ltf II 269 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
c c c *> <_• o *-» o *j o s Sgt 8 'I ~ § § § 1 -£ -a till!Ifll ! Hi' I? 1 - II,o u -g g g -gl2 Oh ea rsJ & & CS E C ea S rsJ K « <D w £ E .5 C h S z oj; « tf <D fw •g ^o ^> I '13 ^o 1 ^> ^ § -I g2" i -i|^ •§$ -i ca <u « w d ,_. .3 « iA 4> 5 ?w I 2 ?5 a rg -S -S G £ £ i I ItC +^ sf|a. « +^ {Li £f|«^k -^3 (Li al|s_r* ^^ (Li 9^..^ ss»C +^ a. « +^ {Li «^k -^3 (Li s_r* ^^ (Li ^..^ s» • Z a. ^ »-h en cn <N - C C C C /-n C- Co OO O^O &0(ca , co , 00 , V5 (D g i(^ 1 11 II I! lit] I! 'g « E^ £ £ H H «srfI .sf 1.^^ a fi.^l &§ 11.&!•§ i 11£f«| i £ $ $ jfisag.giaiSSlsliSiifiaa^iifisili'SS eS I °^ 2 = a 2 270 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1I I 8 I .2 g •&* s § § ^ c -S 3 -g -g ^ II I 1 ! I •I § I I I I I 2" ^ is i i II H if I g 2S g* g^ ^ ^ >^ ojj ox) °i i"B 'I'b' If II if s 3 Z Cl, (N en On On _ C C C ^ C /-s & _ O O O «« O i« 1 11 §1 lite 1Hi .S •► i § S M 96 '%% 8 11 i S *| u » $ Ik t 2 2 E: 271 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I I Ifll „ I u mill f „ I£S S u E E •S S£ •§ S c a a -g |J I II I 1 If 5 I 5 £" I a -I § =g e si 1 ^s s ^^ r « i « 1 O VO ON VO Z If I S3 3 ll. 2 2 9 « C Oh CU D- ^ ■^ I Is ¥ ^ | 1 11 .S 3 . ^tII iliiiJiijiiiilii 272 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
•a f § § § t 1 § 1 1 i?~ I C 1 | ,. | <U •S ^H oo ■8f 1 *i I § •§ '2 Q Q Q Q I'i d d B ftZ Dm en vo en en a I I II•g ■§ •§ ■§ •§ ^ 00 00 00 00 00 ^3 3 cn en Tt *n H oo eN eN cn <n 273 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1*1* I 1 § a?. ai. § ■% s^ III ii§ I § i II 18 § § I i -s i I 11 I I $ z 8 1 •g in cn o E c •I 1 ill -§| %tt 1 Q (N Z VO CO t« -S* IS83 -5'^ ^ ^3 c a I c 2 °f 7 s "ggp^o xj 43 x: ^S O ^ i> t^ o^ •'3 13 II S Si si t^ 11 It If § g S In § S So^ s ^ s 11 I- I I III T30D 00 60 GO U°S 1 tt e a § 5 . liiiiiililiiSfliiilmHOOCN CN <N <N <Wc« 274 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
f S P P P R •S1 S £ B 2 § g pSp§?6•S U^UdUd U^'UHUd ^ - ^ - ^ 2c^ II c^ II c^ II c/5II c^ II <A II > II > II > ^ >00>00>CO >00>00>00 -. GO - i W -h W htthWhW HWHWHW HWHWHW § £ § o ^S S .2 | 8 1 £J 1 I ll 8.^ ■§-l=?s? nil | ■§i § ? ^ |l|iS6«s5*| S 5 |8aJS^U O O S 5 ^ w S C GOH i ^ !! § ,ii| I |l | i lit ii i in . mil m ? I III! : Hill Pi ihs ill! I lifiJ H* S*»8 -a-gS e | g<§!>f .1|S, . fill 1IIII !f!!l!I . Jill Ilil i I til II! ! !^ It^iJ Hill lid f ^ il|A i£liif| SiJfi ill 1 v Hill ;iSlia»l 8Hi8 =?lI stituuiiitiHiifffint 275 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
S ^ 9 « a ?? * s § a - sii 5 rn ^ ^ tj- -* o oo oo i, r- ^frcn "^ cn ^ ^ rn H^HH ^ tj- d *° ° ^ K ^ oocj^ cn cn lJco^ .£ H^HH r d . . d TUdUdU- *° ° ^ u£j K UoiU-^l ^ lJco ^d^ > II > > II CO II M II M II ^11 CO H CA II > II > M HWHH WHWHWHW HW HWHWHW HW & «O rj <n 4-» i 1 il HIlHi ! I 1 i Si ii ifI111|is|. Hi If Hill Mil Si2z s SSo £ _. a. c c 8 ° « g ^ l? 45 1 a •£ S 2-8 ^ 3 g» 2 * 1 5 -a 2 II=sl 1 I I -a is I ! . •5 S S on US 8 t? .S ou ll 'c3 =3 -° oo * g "S .S s ^ §* I 11 I SI 1 1 .1 I? £SaS tS _. <^ to 73 0S_;«t3 g 5 g2•§ S § _. 7 .9 .2 ^ » -g J8 .. ° S .-S C § S ? ^ S II $ .£ if" | 1^| |ll 3S3& !i nn stin tit sit#s 2 a h ? uhu Shu .Shh $ M a 5 S 2 276 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I 8 © S * § ^ ^ V V V £ fc r II 05 II CO II M II CA II M II > II > II > II > II > II > II > II >C/5 "^C/5 >C/3 >C/D ^C/D >C/5^hC/5^</)^hC/5^hC/5^hC/3^hC/3^C/5 I I . I s 1 i i- 1 I 1 t I I ! i U!I. . i | 2 £ § s Si ^§.s5£l §:^'^ I § § | 8 8 d I* 8 ^ ^ ^ I I o !§ 1 ^ a •§ ^ 8 & 8 I d w ^w g c^g % o T> g^ 8 a 8 4 £ I £ w ,g!l|Ss? ^w g c^g % i I g ^ S S ill 1 1 IS ilpj | | | l! Ill 1=1 - i.S.5 a>.i 1^ » ill |1 H*i ill M*-*° ii 2 S *a c '~ S, •a ^ « S c3^2-o I!!! Ill 1!&2£- -sS£Si3 -lit 11* II |il? Ill Ii till zU SI i liiij siifilf 277 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
. ^ m ^ lOf^l MO ^) 1 1 § . I I ^ (S t h q (N o >09ci^ w •r5 H ^h . cs H cs "SoOo w C-S -fc * ii > N > M i ii £ v * I -S"81 - - * 60 „ ■B g S| I o g S a « 1 I rfl I 11 |1 111 f | I I §I--aI It g" iI & 8 I til a m P P ^ ^ S S « IS1 § «§ |^ % S n 2 % • .S^O'S &^ it ii! ! if r 1^| 1.1 § So. 2 I § g fi-g« „ -o-3 ^ •« --5-S « ■§ g.|.s -g 1^3 „ Il«s -S H « cga«a« 1-5*1 S-s Si 8 5 8-81 ITo'IeU || ffliIH !« i ii iltiJHiliiill*Ji I 1I ^ tf8S"I8 I 5^1^gl I il? « •= «-1 =11 "i.3-S•§ I iS^-iS I 1 « i S h £ £ o S u a 278 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is8°? 1I ^ ^ X£8S IS ^s -B 5 ^ § | £ ^s fb°8 ° ^ I% a S S 8 S ^ s~ I SS8°g^c^ u?u§u?ud 2 2 $ ^ ^ '> o -* »5 n »5 n «5 n «i ii ii n 3 ^ 52 •-* >" CO **"C/3^ C/3^ C/5 ^ C/5Ol C/5 < COU <fflUwD5Z hldhUHIDhU HWHUJ ^ Ol C/5 § 1 ti i 1 § 1 | 8 8«£&? §811 ^ s1 £ n^i-s %* s^l^f^S -Is oo o c -s ^ <g.s -p .a -p .a & .a a g P. -^toCcjSo S 2 S to 2 S 2 j) ^^a ^u'ggDc k tA K to k m j)a ^^ .•8 1 § S & g -S « 2 ^ §- S 2 11 go £ w §S^S ^w I! fl HI 1 ?! SI J! II Isi I* -S.S & 2 ^§85' .s?t ii u Ifiiii iii si! ^S-i. lai^ji sb il2 III *.|fll?■ s^s> f if« III II*! Ii!■ jII fti|| 1.!!L « ill vfIillfliillS{ .HI! Iff sllliil? IP! 1 1 ih r if u 1 r 279 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
H m ^ <ni^ g* ooob § £ £ ~- osvo* t^ r-T T *7Q 2 S - I <S Xn^^^^z E s I g ^ ^ h 2 2 ^ ^ *- E ? S c «» c «>ii "g o ^ -a c 5 - . *c «> en I gto w $ <*> 8. 8. §• -2 I 6 8 61 |2 §2| S § S i 8q= §.g£ pco= pqpQ §°2 ^ ^ U U U O c ^ & o g I c £S & B o g^m w a, .ts ^ s > "Sit -8 s I § * ! £ g « -g§ ■3 -8=§ g 1 |S s •-§2 s .s e as ! Hi!I IIg g>-S II .§ ^ g ^ o jg I if fiiii ii If 1 -i8.a»|f-St s?"9! 1 11 I Il^lHtll ll| i ij i ii^pu^ii isii I I HHI fH HHfcHw 1H 280 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1W) tttztnlznj es «j ^^ ca v^ w* ^^ IW) nj es «j ^^ ca v^ w* ^^ C CNr^OOw^Hcscaca fc ^ II S II > II > II > II > II « II « II 5 II > II > II > II « I $ i tilt 1 ! 1 ! I JillIfIf 11! II! l!^ I^^^^^^"■■H "sl^ "HI'S ^ '•g g* I? I .§^3 s-S §s -S.-H |t 1 |I| fi-a? . HI i $3 iitfi ill!!!!!Illlilt Hill Jsl-rg-as Iffltlls 4l 8gs |«i 58.11 Illfiitl Jliil flSilll i . ! ifllilil! iliJlIlililill I! . ! ililiilil !lifi|f!il31i! H £ ^ <C DQ U PQ 281 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
D Q ^ Q '£ g pop gf 9£ v v v § a a 3 3 ^ -a 0*ncSTt^omfNjobc^^ »o ^ £fc ^°^d^°'^f-:^d^o'^dUo'Uo'Uo'Uo' UdUd£fc > II > II > II > II > II > II > II « II « II c« II «5 II «5 II »S II Ny3^W(NW^W(SW^MMW >73 ''"W >CO >W >C/3>C/3 I * J 1 I ! I 1 III! ii Iff 1 1 ^ 1 >i^i^^® «|i«! ° .s K - g ^ II I 8 2 5,i 2^1- -SBM- §^ « S I p § i8f g If § C G r« <*> S C O3 o «3 g r« S B *s S £^ I £ g> C!mI -o«< c2?^ J2 ♦-> S C!m -o«< c I o ^ "-a s i "-a M 'S D gj ON «, .S g" H If* 5 ff-iSl 1 11-I^I y Sl'tflS $ S-gs ^ 1 5 i i 1 '« 1 s| IS lill ! 282 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
! „ f § ! 1 « | ? „ 8pSI^ I .... ^ 3^ 3- ^ •5 Q .... «O CO §" 00 ^ )Q t^ <N .Su^UdUdUdU-; dvod g* «5 II «5 II «5 II «5 II «5 II II a II II -o >> >C/5>C/}>GO>CO>C/5 CO CO CO 5 O HWHWHWHWHW HW HWhW wh fr § I* ao ^ a I f 1 § 3 1 J S 1 | I I t si i I & * Hill! Hi iii^-L i |i|i|l|ioii |ii|i|i j ^I"§ .1^ "hi 6 fll-iJ§ ?il^ |1H I? fills!; lisi !5*!g If II Z*l I 88|.S S>^tg bl §s"g 1 § I 8 3*6I ^ § «sgs S-8 11.8*-31 Sa i.S ulil || i 1111 & lc|§ igjl •!! „ i«!5*i? aisi? ! fi!^ 2 ill I „ sif.lif sill! I si||t| i taf I SiiSli! sill! I Slilp I ill 5 1 llllall till! i ill! II ! seg gI i- ° r ° I I" i r 283 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
»r> © ^ i-m^ Q c<">Q © *o +■***^T to E"^ ^ ,8 g8 o ^ 3 g - onos «->m «, o | B £ &> "~ ,8 | g8 o ||^------|||| 3 g - onos «->m «, o | B £ &> | 1 JLI s Is Is 1' II tH Uhih im I II -On C fi i r 1 isSl I 1* ! fi llSI i* !3 li -Sail * S I f* 112 Mo1 %2 .< I t I L iiI ii| a* ii H fflllf lUIillllf it illI iiiiuili l^ll 111111 Ullllli! S , 35518fill Ji Si »tll 111 a= 6§2o«> * 8 S 8 S I H-ti c<2.o E «Q« h£ 55 on Z>?oll«iu'os 284 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 3 Typeofinterventionbystudydesign Studydesign Treatment- Interventiontype comparison Single group Single subject Marginaltotals Comprehension 9 1 3 13 Fluency 113 5 Wordstudy 4 0 0 4 Multicomponent 3 13 7 Marginaltotals 17 3 9 29 studyfeatures,includingsamplecharacteristics,design,anddurationoftheinter- ventionas well as fidelityofimplementation. Samplecharacteristics.The 29 studiesincluded976 students.Sample sizes ranged from1 to 125,withan averageof51 participantsfortreatment-comparisonstud- ies. The majorityofstudiestargetedmiddleschool students(n = 19). Five studies focusedon highschoolstudents,2 onbothmiddleandhighschool students,and3 reportedonlystudents'ages. Althoughourcriteriaincludedinterventionsforall strugglingreaders,includingthosewithoutidentifieddisabilities,only8 studies included samples of strugglingreaderswithoutdisabilities.The otherstudies includedstudentswithlearningorreadingdisabilities(n = 17) or a combination ofbothstudentswithandwithoutdisabilities(n = 4). Studydesign.The corpusof studiesincluded17 treatment-comparison,9 single- subject,and3 single-groupdesignstudies.The distributionofinterventiontypeby designis displayedinTable 3. The numberoftreatment-comparisonstudieswith specificdesignelementsthatarecharacteristicofhighqualitystudies(Instituteof EducationSciences,2003; Raudenbush,2005; Shadish,2002) isindicatedinTable4. The threeelementsinTable4 wereselectedbecause theystrengthenthevalidityof studyconclusionswhenappropriatelyemployed.As indicated,only2 studies(Abbott & Berninger,1999; Allinder,Dunse, Brunken,& Obermiller-Krolikowski,2001) randomlyassigned studentsto conditions,reportedimplementationfidelity,and measuredstudentoutcomesusingstandardizedmeasures. Interventiondesignandimplementation.Thenumberofinterventionsessionsranged from2 to70. For 11 studies,thenumberofsessionswas notreportedandcouldnot be determinedfromtheinformationprovided.Similarly,thefrequencyandlengthof sessionswas inconsistentlyreportedbutis providedinTable 1 whenavailable.For studiesthatreportedthelengthand numberof sessions (n = 12), studentswere engagedinanaverageof23 hrofinstruction.Fortreatment-comparisondesignstud- ies,theaveragenumberofinstructionalhoursprovidedwas 26 (n = 10). Narrativetextwas used in mosttext-levelinterventions(n = 12). Two studies used bothnarrativeandexpositorytextduringtheintervention,and7 used expos- itorytextexclusively.For4 studies,thetypeoftextused was notdiscernable,and as wouldbe expected,theword-levelstudiesdidnotincludeconnectedtext.About anequal numberofstudyinterventionswas implementedbyteachers(n =13) and 285 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 4 Qualityoftreatment-comparisonstudies Element Numberofstudies Randomassignmenttoconditions 10 Fidelityoftreatmentreported 9 Standardizeddependentmeasures 10 Randomassignment,treatmentfidelity,and standardizedmeasures 2 researchers(n = 12). Two interventionswere implementedby bothteachersand researchers,andthepersonimplementingtheinterventioncouldnotbe determined from2 studies. Meta-Analysis To summarizetheeffectofreadinginterventionson students'comprehension, we conducteda meta-analysisof a studysubset(k = 13; Abbott& Berninger, 1999; Alfassi, 1998; Allinderet al., 2001; Anderson,Chan, & Henne, 1995; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; L. S. Fuchs,Fuchs,& Kazdan, 1999; Hasselbring& Goin, 2004; Jitendra,Hoppes, & Xin, 2000; Mastropieriet al., 2001; Moore & Scevak, 1995; Penney, 2002; Wilder & Williams, 2001; Williams, Brown, Silverstein,& deCani, 1994). Studieswiththeoreticallysimilarcontrastsandmea- suresofreadingcomprehensionwereincludedin themeta-analysis.All selected studiescomparedtheeffectsofa readinginterventionwitha comparisoncondition inwhichtheconstructofinterestwas absent.By selectingonlystudieswithcon- trastsbetweena treatmentconditionanda no-treatmentcomparisoncondition,we could ensurethattheresultingpointestimateoftheeffectcould be meaningfully interpreted. The majorityofqualifyingstudiesreportedmultiplecomprehensiondependent variables.Thus,we firstcalculateda compositeeffectforeach studyusingmeth- ods outlinedbyRosenthalandRubin(1986) suchthateach studycontributedonly one effecttotheaggregate.In thesecalculations,effectsfromstandardizedmea- surewere weightedmoreheavily(w = 2) thaneffectsfromresearch-developed measures.We analyzeda random-effectsmodelwithone predictorvariable(inter- ventiontype)toaccountforthepresenceofunexplainedvarianceandtoprovidea moreconservativeestimateofeffectsignificance.A weightedaverageofeffects was estimatedand theamountofvariancebetweenstudyeffectscalculatedusing theQ statistic(Shadish& Haddock, 1994). In additiontoan overallpointestimate of theeffectof readinginterventions,we also calculated weightedaverages to highlighteffectsofcertaininterventioncharacteristics(e.g.,usingnarrativeversus expositorytext).Whenreportingweightedmeaneffects,onlyoutcomesfromstud- ies withtreatment-comparisonconditionswere included. Effectsfromsingle- groupstudieswereexcludedbecause onlyone study(Mercer,Campbell,Miller, Mercer& Lane, 2000) providedtheinformationneededto converttherepeated- measureseffectsize intothesame metricas an independentgroupeffectsize. Overall effecton comprehension.The 13 treatment-comparisonstudies were includedinthemeta-analysisbecause they(a) had theoreticallysimilarcontrasts andmeasuresofreadingcomprehensionand(b) examinedtheeffectsofa reading 286 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis interventionwitha comparisoninwhichtheconstructofinterestwasabsent.In8 studies,thecontrastwasbetweentheinterventionofinterestandtheschool'scur- rentreadinginstruction.In5 studies,thecomparisonconditionalsoreceivedan intervention,buttheconstructorstrategyofinterestwasabsentfromthatcondi- tion.Theremaining4 treatment-comparisonstudiesinthesynthesiswereelimi- natedfromthemeta-analysisbecausetheydid notincludea comprehension measure(Bhat,Griffin,& Sindelair,2003;Bhattacharya& Ehri,2004)ortheydid notincludea no-treatmentcomparisoncondition(Chan,1996;Klingner& Vaughn, 1996). A random-effectsmodelwasusedtoprovidea moreconservativeestimateof interventioneffectsignificance.Inthismodel,theweightedaverageofthediffer- enceincomprehensionoutcomesbetweenstudentsinthetreatmentconditionsand studentsinthecomparisonconditionswaslarge(effectsize = 0.89; 95% confi- denceinterval(CI) = 0.42, 1.36).Thatis,studentsinthetreatmentconditions scored,onaverage,morethantwothirdsofa standarddeviationhigherthanstu- dentsinthecomparisonconditionsonmeasuresofcomprehension,andtheeffect wassignificantlydifferentfromzero. To examinewhetherresearcher-developedor curriculum-basedmeasures inflatedtheeffectofreadinginterventions,wealsocalculatedtheeffectbasedon standardizedmeasuresonly.Forthisanalysis,sevenstudieswereincluded;the othersixstudieswereeliminatedfromthissecondaryanalysisbecausetheydidnot includea standardizedmeasureofcomprehension.Whenlimitedtoonlystudies thatincludeda standardizedmeasureofcomprehension,therandom-effectsmodel yieldeda moderateaverageeffect(effectsize= 0.47;95% CI = 0.12,0.82).The effectofreadinginterventionsoncomprehensionwasquitelarge(effectsize= 1.19;95% CI = 1.10,1.37)whenresearcher-developedmeasureswereusedto estimatetheeffect(k= 9). Ina fixed-effectsmodel,interventiontypewasa significantpredictorofeffect sizevariation(^between= 22.33,p < .05),whichsuggeststhattheeffectsizeswere notsimilaracrossthecategories.Weightedaverageeffectsforeachintervention type(comprehension,fluency,wordstudy,andmulticomponent)werecalculated andarepresentedinTable5. Forfluencyandwordstudyinterventions,theeffect wasnotsignificant- theaverageeffectoncomprehensionwasnotdifferentfrom zero.Fortheotherinterventiontypes,theeffectwassignificantlydifferentfrom zerobutdifferedinmagnitude.Bonferroniposthoccontrastsshoweda significant differenceineffectsoncomprehensionbetweencomprehensionandmulticompo- nentinterventions(p < .025).Therewas no significantdifferencebetweenthe effectsofwordstudyinterventionsandmulticomponentinterventions(p > .025). Wealsocomputedweightedaverageeffectsforstudieswithcommoncharac- teristics.Whetheraninterventionwasimplementedbytheresearcher(n= 4,aver- ageeffectsize= 1.15)orthestudents'teacher(n= 8,effectsize= 0.77),theeffects werelarge.The95% CIs forthesetwoconditionsdidnotoverlap,suggestingthat theyaresignificantlydifferent.Effectsoncomprehensionweredifferentdepend- ingonthestudentpopulation.Moderateaverageeffectswerefoundforsamplesof strugglingreaders(n= 5,effectsize= 0.45)orbothstrugglingreadersandstudents withdisabilities(n= 4,effectsize= 0.68),buta largeeffect(n= 4,effectsize= 1.50)wasfoundforstudieswithsamplesofonlystudentswithdisabilities. 287 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 5 Averageweightedeffectsbymeasurementandinterventiontype Effectsize(95% confidenceinterval) Measurementtype Allmeasures(n= 13) 0.89(0.42,1.36) Standardizedmeasures(n= 7) 0.47(0.12,0.82) Researcherdevelopedmeasures(n= 9) 1.19(1.10,1.37) InterventionType Fluency(n= 1) -0.03 (-0.56,0.62) Wordstudy(n= 2) 0.34(-0.22,0.88) Multicomponent(n= 3) 0.72(0.45,0.99) Comprehension(n= 7) 1.23(0.96,1.5) Eleven of the 13 studiesincludedin themeta-analysisused readingof con- nectedtextas partoftheintervention.In an analysisof studiesthatreportedthe typeof textused, theweightedaverageeffectforinterventionsusingexpository textwas moderate(n = 3, effectsize = 0.53), whereastheaverageeffectforthose focusingon narrativetextwas high(n = 6, effectsize = 1.30). Closerexamination ofthestudieswithinterventionsfocusedonexpositorytext(Alfassi,1998;DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Moore & Scevak, 1995) showed thattwo studiestestedthe effectsofa multicomponentinterventionsimilarinstructuretoreciprocalteaching andone examinedtheeffectsofusinggraphicorganizers. InterventionVariables For thissynthesis,we examinedfindingsfromtreatment-comparisondesign studiesfirst,because thefindingsfromthesestudiesprovidethegreatestconfi- denceaboutcausal inferences.We thenusedresultsfromsingle-groupandsingle- subjectdesignstudiestosupportorrefutefindingsfromthetreatment-comparison design studies.Findingsare summarizedby interventiontype.Interventiontype was definedas theprimaryreadingcomponentaddressedbytheintervention(i.e., wordstudy,fluency,vocabulary,comprehension).The corpusof studiesdid not includeanyvocabularyinterventionsbutdidincludeseveralstudiesthataddressed multiplecomponentsin which vocabularyinstructionwas represented.Within each summary,findingsfordifferentreadingoutcomes(e.g., fluency,wordread- ing,comprehension)arereportedseparatelytohighlighttheinterventions'effects on componentreadingskills. Comprehension.Nine treatment-comparisonstudies(Alfassi, 1998; Anderson etal., 1995; Chan, 1996; DiCecco & Gleason,2002; Jitendraetal.,2000; Klingner & Vaughn,1996; Moore & Scevak, 1995; Wilder& Williams,2001; Williams et al., 1994) focusedon comprehension.Among thesestudies,several(Alfassi, 1998; Andersonet al., 1995; Klingner& Vaughn,1996; Moore & Scevak, 1995) examinedinterventionsin whichstudentsweretaughta combinationofreading comprehensionskillsandstrategies,an approachwithevidenceofeffectivenessin improvingstudents'generalcomprehension(NRP, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group,2002). Two studies(Alfassi, 1998; Klingner& Vaughn,1996) employed reciprocalteaching(Palincsar,Brown,& Martin,1987), a model thatincludes 288 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis previewing,clarifying,generatingquestions,andsummarizingandhasbeenshown tobe highlyeffectiveinimprovingcomprehension(see forreview,Rosenshine& Meister,1994). Klingnerand Vaughn (1996) reportedmixed resultswhen the groupingstructureof a reciprocalteachinginterventionwas manipulatedduring studentapplicationand practice.On a standardizedmeasureof comprehension, cooperativegroupingwas the more effectivemodel (effectsize = 1.42). On a researcher-developedcomprehensionmeasure,theeffectsweresmallbutfavored thepeertutoringgroup(effectsize = 0.35). It is likelythatthestandardizedtest outcomeis morereliable,suggestinggreatereffectsfromtheuse ofcooperative groupingstructures,atleastforEnglishlanguagelearnerswithreadingdifficulties. In anotherstudy,effectsofreciprocalteachingon comprehensionweremoderate tohigh(effectsize = 0.35 to 1.04;Alfassi,1998) whenimplementedina remedial highschoolsetting,a contextnottypicallyexaminedinpreviousstudiesofrecipro- cal teaching(Alfassi,1998). The multiple-strategyinterventioninAndersonet al. (1995) resultedin large effects(effectsize = 0.80 to2.08). Therepertoireofstrategiesincludedpreviewing andusingknowledgeoftextstructuretofacilitateunderstanding.However,another study(Moore & Scevak, 1995), whichfocusedon teachingstudentsto use text structureand featuresto summarizeexpositorytext,reportedno effects(effect size = -0.57 to 0.07). It should be notedthatthe interventionprovidedin the Andersonandcolleagues study(1995) was conductedfor140hr(a veryextensive intervention),andtheamountoftimefortheinterventionintheMoore andScevak study(1995) was notspecified,butthestudywas conductedforonly7 weeks- suggestinga significantlyless extensiveintervention. Chan (1996) manipulatedbothstrategyinstructionand attributiontrainingand foundthatpoor readersbenefitedfromsome attributiontraining,withthemost effectivemodelbeingattributiontrainingplus successivestrategytraining(effect size = 1.68). In addition,all threestrategyconditionsweremoreeffectivethanthe attribution-onlycondition,which suggeststhatpoor readersalso benefitfrom explicitstrategyinstruction. Using graphicorganizersis anotherstrategywithdemonstratedefficacyin improvingcomprehension(Kim et al., 2004). One experimentalstudy(DiCecco & Gleason, 2002) and two single-subject studies (Gardhill & Jitendra,1999; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt,1997) examinedtheimpactof teachingstudentsto use graphicorganizers.In DiCecco and Gleason (2002), theeffectof a concept relationshipgraphicorganizerinterventiononrelationalstatementproductionwas large(effectsize = 1.68). However,theeffectwas mixedformeasuresofcontent knowledge(effectsize = 0.08 to 0.50). Otherstudiesalso indicatedthatgraphic organizersassistedstudentsinidentifyinginformationrelatedtotheorganizerbut wereless effectiveinimprovingstudents'overallunderstandingoftext.Forexam- ple,ina single-subjectstudyofa storymappingintervention,GardhillandJitendra (1999) foundmixedresultson generalcomprehensionquestions(PND = 13% to 100%) butconsistentimprovementcomparedto baseline on storyretell(PND = 100%). Similarly,all threestudentsina studyofexplicitstorymapping(Vallecorsa & deBettencourt,1997) increasedthenumberofstoryelementsincludedina retell (PND = 67% to 100%). Otherstudies focused on a single comprehensionstrategy(Jitendraet al., 2000; Wilder& Williams,2001; Williamsetal., 1994). Studiesofsingle-strategy 289 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. interventionsshowedlargeeffectsonmeasuresalignedcloselywiththeinterven- tionbutlimitedexamplesoftransfertomoregeneralcomprehensionmeasures.For example,studentswhoweretaughttoidentifymainideaswithintextoutperformed studentsinthecomparisonconditionona taskofidentifyingandproducingmain ideastatements(effectsize= 2.23;Jitendraetal.,2000).Althoughthetreatment effectsweremaintainedonnearandfartransfermeasures(effectsize= 1.84to 2.57),scoresdecreasedsignificantlyforbothconditionsontransferpassages,indi- catinga lackoftransfertonovelcontexts.Similarly,interventionsinwhichstu- dentsweretaughttoidentifyandapplystorythemes(Wilder& Williams,2001; Williamsetal.,1994)resultedinlargeeffectsonmeasuresofthemeidentification andapplication(effectsize= 1.41to5.93).Effectsofthisinterventionongeneral comprehensiontasksweresomewhatattenuated,althoughstilldemonstrating moderateeffects(effectsize= 0.41to0.59;Wilder& Williams,2001). Threestudiesincludedinformationaboutstudents'decodingabilities(Alfassi, 1998;DiCecco & Gleason,2002;Jitendraetal.,2000).Inall threestudies,stu- dentswereadequatedecodersbutpoorcomprehenders.Theaverageeffectofthe comprehensioninterventionswaslarge(effectsize= 1.04). Multicomponent.Studies(L. S. Fuchsetal., 1999;Hasselbring& Goin;2004; Mastropierietal.,2001) wereclassifiedasmulticomponentwhentheinterventions includedinstructioninmorethanonecomponentofreading,suchas wordstudy withfluencyorfluencywithcomprehension.Twomulticomponentstudies(L. S. Fuchsetal.,1999;Mastropierietal.,2001)featureda slightlymodifiedversionof a peer-assistedlearningcomprehensionandfluencyintervention,aninstructional modelwithdemonstratedefficacyintheearlyelementarygrades(D. Fuchs,Fuchs, Mathes,& Simmons,1997).Resultswhenusingthisinterventionmodelwitholder strugglingreadersweremixed.Whenimplementedinan inclusivesettingon a biweeklybasis,effectsoncomprehensionskillsweresmall(effectsize= 0.31; L. S. Fuchsetal., 1999)yetwerequitelargewhenimplementeddailyina self- containedresourceroom(effectsize=1.18; Mastropierietal.,2001).Itshouldbe notedthatthelargeeffectsizewascomputedfromdataona researcher-developed measure,whereasthesmallereffectwasbasedondatafroma standardizedmea- sure,whichisa morereliablemeasureoftheintervention'seffect. Ina single-groupdesignstudy(Bryantetal.,2000),studentsparticipatedinan enhancedcollaborativestrategicreadinginterventionduringwhichtheyapplied wordlearning,wordreading,andcomprehensionstrategiesandpracticedfluent reading.Thiswas theonlystudythatexaminedtheeffectsofan instructional modelwithallfourcomponentsincluded.Effectsonwordidentificationandoral readingfluencyweremoderate(effectsize= 0.64,effectsize= 0.67,respectively), buteffectsoncomprehensionweresmall(effectsize= 0.22). HasselbringandGoin(2004)implementeda computer-basedinterventionthat providedstudentswithwordreadingandspellingpracticeandcomprehension supportduringtextreading.Effectson comprehension(effectsize= 1.0) and vocabulary(effectsize= 0.75) werelarge.Effectsonword-levelskills,however, weresmall(effectsize= 0.23to0.44).Resultsfroma single-subjectdesignstudy withwordstudyas oneinstructionalcomponent(Strong,Wehby,Falk,& Lane, 2004),indicatedmoreconsistentimprovementinstudents'oralreadingfluency whenwordstudywas combinedwithfluencypracticethanwhenwordstudy 290 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis instructionalonewasprovided.However,SteventonandFrederick(2003)hadless successwithonestudentwhoparticipatedina similarwordstudyandfluency intervention.Theirresultsshowedlessimprovementcomparedtobaselinefororal readingfluencyandvirtuallynotransferoffluentreadingtonoveltext. Therewereonlytwostudiesthatfeaturedtechnologyprominentlyintheinstruc- tion.OnewasthepreviouslydiscussedmulticomponentinterventionbyHasselbring andGoin(2004).Theotherwasa studythatusedcomputerstoenhancetextand supportreading(MacArthur& Haynes,1995),whichyieldedan effectsize in favorofbasictextsupport(wordrecognitionanddecodingwithvocabularysup- port)whencomparedwithenhancedtextsupport(additionalsupportthatincludes questionwindows,glossary,teachercomments,andspeechsynthesis)forcompre- hendingexpositorytext. Fluency.Thesynthesisincludedonetreatment-comparisondesignstudyofflu- ency(Allinderetal.,2001).Allinderetal.(2001)studiedtheeffectsofprompting studentstouse strategiesforfluentreading(e.g.,readingwithinflection)and foundno effectson standardizedword-levelorcomprehensionmeasures.The otherstudiesoffluencyfocusedonimprovingoralreadingfluency,oftenthrough wordorphrasereadingfluencyand/orrepeatedreading.Resultsweremixedwith inconsistentimprovementsinoralreadingfluencycomparedtobaseline(Freeland, Skinner,Jackson,McDaniel& Smith,2000; Merceret al., 2000; Valleley& Shriver,2003). Wordstudy.Threeoffourexperimentalword-levelstudiesexaminedtheeffectsof advancedwordreadingstrategies(Abbott& Berninger,1999;Bhattacharya& Ehri,2004;Penney,2002).Thefourth(Bhatetal.,2003)studiedtheeffectsofa phonemicawarenessintervention.Resultsofthephonemicawarenessintervention werepositive,withlargeeffectson phonemicprocessing(effectsize = 1.59). However,theoveralleffectofimprovedphonemicprocessingtransferredmini- mallytoimprovedwordidentification(effectsize= 0.15). Resultsforthethreestructuralanalysisstudiesweremixed,witheffectsranging from-0.31to1.40.BhattacharyaandEhri(2004)foundthatalthoughhavingstu- dentspracticewhole-wordreadingversusprovidingnowordreadinginstruction atallhada smalleffect(effectsize = 0.43),teachingstudentsa structuralanalysis approach(i.e.,multisyllabicchunking)hada largeeffect(effectsize= 1.40).In anotherstudythatcompareda structuralanalysisapproachto typicalreading instruction,theeffectsonwordreadingweremoderate(effectsize= 0.43to0.48; Penney,2002).Inthethirdstudy(Abbott& Berninger,1999),theeffectofphonics andstructuralanalysisinstructiononwordreadingskillswasminimal(effectsize = -.31 to.04).However,inthelatterstudy,thecomparisonandtreatmentcondi- tionsreceivedidenticalinterventions,withtheexceptionofthedecodingstrategy taught:Thecomparisonconditionwastaughta syntheticphonicsstrategyandthe treatmentconditiona combinationofphonicsandstructurallyanalysis.Results mayhavebeenlowerinthisstudybecause,withbothconditionsbeingprovideda fairlyrobusttreatment,thecontrastedconditionswerenotas dissimilaras inthe othertwostudies. Acrossstudies,theweightedaverageeffectofstructuralanalysisinstructionon wordreadingskillswasmoderate(effectsize= .36,95%CI = .03,.69).Twostud- ies (Abbott& Berninger,1999;Penney,2002) measuredcomprehensionas an 291 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. outcomeofa word-levelintervention.Again,theresultsweremixed(effectsize = -0.12to0.65). Discussion Resultsfromthemeta-analysisindicatethatstudentswithreadingdifficulties anddisabilitiescanimprovetheircomprehensionwhenprovidedwitha targeted readinginterventionincomprehension,multiplereadingcomponents,or,to a lesserextent,wordreadingstrategies.Evenwhenusingstandardizedmeasures, whichoffera moregeneralizedmeasureofcomprehension,theeffectismoderate, providingstudentswithanaverageofa halfstandarddeviationadvantagecom- paredtotheirpeerswithoutthetreatment. A primaryfindingfromthissynthesisisthatstrugglingreaderscanimprovein theirreadingcomprehensionwhentaughtreadingcomprehensionpractices. Seeminglyobvious,thisphenomenonisquitesignificantbecausemanystruggling readersinoldergrades(6 through12) arenotprovidedeffectiveinstructionin readingcomprehension.Infact,interventionsthatspecificallytargetedstudents withlearningdisabilitieswereassociatedwiththehighestgainsinreadingcom- prehension.Resultsfromthissynthesissuggestthatexplicitinstructionincompre- hensionbenefitedstudentswithreadingdifficultiesanddisabilities.Findingsalso suggestthattheremaybea diminishingrelationshipbetweenaccuracy(e.g.,word recognitionandfluentreading)andcomprehensionwithsecondarystudents.When studentsreachtheupperelementarygrades,otherfactors,suchas background knowledge,wordknowledge,anduseofstrategies,contributetocomprehension (Kintsch& Kintsch,2004).Thelargeeffectsofinterventionsthatdevelopedstu- dents'strategyknowledgeanduseandtherelativelylowereffectsofothertypesof interventionsoncomprehensionsupportthesepreviousfindings.Thus,forstu- dentswholackwordreadingskills,itisnecessarytobuildtheseword-levelskills whileteachingcomprehensionsothataccesstoincreasinglydifficultlevelsofprint isavailabletothem. Asindicatedbythemeta-analysis,word-levelinterventionsareassociatedwith smalltomoderateeffectsoncomprehension(d = .34).Thissupportssomestudies inearlygradelevels(e.g.,Baumannetal.,2002)thatfoundlittleeffectoncompre- hensionfromstructuralanalysisinterventions.Althoughtheaverageeffectwasnot significantlydifferentfromzero,thesmalltomoderateeffectisanimportantfind- ing,particularlyforolderstudentswithverylowdecodingskillswhorequire extensiveinstructioninword-levelskills.Itisvaluabletoknowthatthereisa small tomoderateeffectforcomprehensionfromword-levelinterventions. Thedatatrendfromthestudiesoffluencyindicatesthatincreasedreadingrate andaccuracydidnotalwaysresultin improvedcomprehension(e.g.,Allinder etal., 2001). Theseresultssupportotherresearchon therelationshipbetween comprehensionandfluencyforolderstudents.Forexample,KuhnandStahl(2003) foundthatalthoughfluencyinstructionimprovedtheprocessingskillsthatfacili- tatecomprehension,fewfluencyinterventionsfosteredbettergeneralcomprehen- sion.Statedmoresuccinctly,as studentsimprovedtheiroralreadingfluency, comprehensiondidnotjointlyimprove.Othersalso reportthatthecorrelation betweenoralreadingfluencyandcomprehensionappearstobe a developmental relationship,decreasingsteadilywithageandwithtextdifficulty(Francis,Fletcher, Catts,& Tomblin,2004;Paris,Carpenter,Paris,& Hamilton,2004).Foreducators, 292 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis themessage fromthesefindingsis that"an intensefocuson fluencymaypay a short-termdividend,[however]thecost-benefitanalysisof such an emphasisfor adolescentlearnerslooksless attractive"(Underwood& Pearson,2004,p. 139). Althoughwe do notthinktheevidencefromthissynthesiswouldsuggestforgo- inginstructionin readingskillssuch as fluencyor advanced decodingstrategies withsecondarystrugglingreaders- particularlyforstudentswhose wordreading skillsareexceedinglylow- thefindingsfromthissynthesisdo encourageeduca- torsto includeinstructiontargetingcomprehensionskills.Resultsfromthissyn- thesissuggestthatolder strugglingreadersbenefitfromexplicitcomprehension strategyinstruction- thatis,modelingandthinkingaloudhowtoself-questionand reflectduringandafterreadingandengagingstudentstobecomeactivelyinvolved inmonitoringtheirunderstandingandprocessingtextmeaning.This formofcol- laborationamong studentsas theyread and constructmeaninghas been well definedbyBeck and colleagues in theirworkon "questioningtheauthor"(Beck & McKeown, 2006; Beck, McKeown,Worthy,Sandora,& Kucan, 1997). The moderateand largeeffectson trainingand near-transfermeasuresdid not frequentlygeneralize to measuresof broader,more generalcomprehension.It appearsthatcomprehensionand multicomponentinterventionscan resultin stu- dents'becomingmoreproficientinapplyinglearnedstrategiesandlearningtaught content,buttheyoftendo notresultinreaderswhouse thestrategiesindependently andflexiblyinnovelcontexts.Forexample,Alfassi(1998) foundthatthesignifi- canteffectforconditiononresearcher-developedmeasures(effectsize = 1.04) did notgeneralizeto standardizedmeasuresofbroadcomprehensionand vocabulary skills (0.35 and 0.16, respectively).For single-strategyinterventions,students weresuccessfulon measuresrelatedtothetargetedstrategy(e.g., identifyingthe mainidea afterexplicitmainidea instruction;Jitendraetal., 2000), butonbroader measuresof comprehension,effectswere generallylower and less consistent. These resultssuggestthatolderstrugglingreadersmayneedadditionalopportuni- ties to apply newlylearnedstrategiesto novel textor may need to learnother practicesrelatedtotextreflection,self-questioning,andengagement. On thebasis ofthemixedresultsfromstudiesthatexaminedtheeffectsofearly readinginstructionalpractices(e.g., reciprocalteachingand graphicorganizers), we concludethateducatorscannotassume thatinstructionalpracticeswithdem- onstratedefficacyin thelower grades will be equally as effectivewhen imple- mentedwitholderstrugglingreaders.Thereare severalpossible explanationsfor this.First,thelearningneedsofthispopulationmaydifferfromthoseofyounger students.Some ofthesestudentsmayhavehadextensiveinterventionsaddressing word-levelskillsand fewinterventionsaddressingpracticesforcomprehending text.Thismayexplainwhycomprehensioninterventionsforstudentswithlearning disabilitieswereassociatedwithexceedinglyhigheffectsizes. Itmaybe thatstu- dentswithdisabilitieshavehad relativelylimitedinstructioninthisarea. Second, olderreadersare requiredto read moreinformationor expositorytext.Although thenumberofexpositorytextstudieswas fewin thissynthesis,overallnarrative textwas associatedwithhighereffectsizes fromcomprehensioninterventionsthan expositorytext.Thus,comprehensionpracticesdevelopedtoaddressnarrativetext comprehensionmaybenefitnarrativetextcomprehensionandhavea lowerimpact onreadingexpositorytext- atleastforolderstrugglingreaders.Itmayalso be that olderstrugglingreadersdisplayreadingdifficultiesthataremorerecalcitrantand 293 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. requiremoreintensiveinterventions(e.g., longerduration,moretargeted)to achievesimilarresults. Limitations As withanysynthesis,ourfindingsaretemperedbya fewlimitations.First, issuesofmeasurementintheareaofcomprehensionareextensive(Snow,2003). Comprehensionisa difficultconstructtoassess,andmanyofthestudiesmeasured comprehensioninvariedways.Comprehensionwasmeasuredbytasksthatranged frommemorizationactivities(e.g.,recall)to indicationsofcomplexcognitive behaviors(drawinginferences).Sometheoristswouldarguethatpoolingorcom- paringoutcomesfrommeasuresassessinga spectrumofskillsmaybemisleading. Giventhelimitednumberofmeasuresandthelimitednumberofstudieswithin eachgivencategoryofskillcomplexity,however,we believedthatgainingan understandingoftheoveralleffectoncomprehensionprovidesa summaryofwhat weknowandinsightintofutureresearchneeded. Second,theuseofresearcher-developedmeasures(ornonstandardizedmea- sures)wasassociatedwithhighereffectsizesthanstandardizedmeasures.Thisis a consistentfindingfrominterventionresearchin education(e.g., Swanson, Hoskyn,& Lee,1999)andshouldbeconsideredwheninterpretingtheresultsfrom interventionstudies. Finally,synthesesareonlyas goodas thequalityoftheresearcharticlesavail- able.Wethinkthatthissynthesisyieldsvaluablefindings;however,onlyadditional researchandbetter-qualityresearchwilldeterminewhetherthesefindingswillbe supportedovertime. ImplicationsandFutureResearch Thissynthesisyieldsseveralimplicationsforeducators.First,we thinkthat thesestudiesindicatethatcomprehensionpracticesthatengagestudentsinthink- ingabouttext,learningfromtext,anddiscussingwhattheyknowarelikelytobe associatedwithimprovedcomprehensionoutcomesforstudentswithreadingdif- ficultiesanddisabilities.Second,thecomprehensionpracticesusedaremore effectivefornarrativetextthanexpositorytext.Wethinkthatteachersmaywantto considertheuseofadditionalelements,suchas graphicorganizersandcalling students'attentiontotextstructureswhenstudentsarereadingrelevantexpository orinformationtexts.Third,comprehensionoutcomeswerehigherwheninterven- tionswereimplementedbyresearchersincontrasttowhenimplementedbyteach- ers.Because it is likelythatresearchersare moreattentiveto implementing interventionswithhighlevelsoffidelity,teachersmaywanttoconsidertheirfidel- ityofimplementationwhentargetingcomprehensionpractices. Thereareseveralimportantareasrelatedtoreadingcomprehensionthatthis synthesiswasunabletoaddressandwouldbeimportanttoconsiderinfuturesyn- theses.Asstatedintheintroduction,RANDReadingStudyGroup(2002)identified severalcriticalelementsthatcontributedtocomprehension:thereader,thetext,and theactivity.Thissynthesisexaminedtheextenttowhichstudentsidentifiedby previousresearchersas havingreadingdifficultiesordisabilitiescoulddemon- strateimprovedcomprehensionwhenparticipatingin specifiedinterventions designedtoimprovetheirreading.Therearemanyotherkeyareasrelatedtoread- ingcomprehension,includingtherelationshipbetweenthesocioculturalcontext 294 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis andthestudent,teacher,andsetting.Wethinkthatthesevariablesaswellas social andaffectivevariablesrelatedtostudents'interestandmotivationwouldmakefor valuableunderstandingoftheroleofcontextonstudents'comprehension.This synthesisalsodidnotexaminetherelationshipbetweenwritinginterventionson readingcomprehensionoutcomesforolderstrugglingreaders.Anextensionofthis synthesismayprovideadditionalinsightintoeffectsofwritinginterventionson comprehensionforstrugglingreadersinmiddleandhighschool. Wealsothinkthatthissynthesisprovidesamplesupportforadditionalresearch intheareaofreadingcomprehension.Recently,a reportonadolescentliteracy indicatedthatasmanyas70%ofsecondarystudentsrequiresomeformofreading remediation(Biancarosa& Snow,2004).Thetypeofreadinginstructionrequired forthislargenumberofsecondarystudentsis notwelldefined;however,wecan becertainthatmanyofthesestudentswillrequireeffectiveinstructiontargetedat improvingtheirreadingcomprehension.Futureresearchaddressingtheneedsof thisvariedgroupofstrugglingadolescentreadersis needed,includingimproved measurementinreadingcomprehension;effectiveinterventionsforvarioustext types,includinginformationtext;studiesthatimproveourconfidenceofeffective- nessbyadheringtoexperimentaldesignprinciples;andstudiesthataligntheinter- ventionwiththespecificneedsofstudents(e.g.,decoding,vocabulary,and/or comprehension).Wealsoacknowledgethatessentialaspectsofreadingcompre- hensionwitholderstudentsincludeconsiderationofengagementandinvolvement withtext,motivation,self-efficacy,andhowtonurtureandexpandreadinginter- ests.Manyofthesevariablesareconsideredtobe primarysourcesofvariance whenattemptingtopositivelyinfluencethereadingcomprehensionofolderstu- dentswithreadingdifficulties(Guthrie,Wigfield,& VonSecker,2000).A better understandingofthesekeyvariableswillassistteachersandeducationaldecision makersinimprovingreadinginstructionforolderstudents. References Abbott,S. P.,& Berninger,V.W.(1999). It'snevertoolatetoremediate:Teachingword recognitiontostudentswithreadingdisabilitiesinGrades4-7. AnnalsofDyslexia, 49,223-250. Alfassi,M. (1998). Readingformeaning:Theefficacyofreciprocalteachinginfoster- ingreadingcomprehensionin highschool studentsin remedialreadingclasses. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,35, 309-332. Allinder,R. M, Dunse,L., Brunken,C. D., & Obermiller-Krolikowski,H. J.(2001). Improvingfluencyinat-riskreadersandstudentswithlearningdisabilities.Remedial andSpecialEducation,22,48-45. Alvermann,D. E. (2002). Effectiveliteracyinstructionforadolescents.Journalof LiteracyResearch,34, 189-208. Anderson,V.,Chan,K. K., & Henne,R. (1995). Theeffectsofstrategyinstructionon theliteracymodelsandperformanceofreadingandwritingdelayedmiddleschool students.InK. A. Hinchman,D. J.Leu, & C. K. Kinzer(Eds.), Perspectiveson lit- eracy researchand practice: Forty-fourthyearbookof the National Reading Conference(pp. 180-189).Chicago:NationalReadingConference. Baumann,J.K, bdwards,b. c, ront,u., leresmnsKi,c a., is^ameenui,c. j., <k Olejnik,J. (2002). Teachingmorphemicand contextualanalysisto fifth-grade students.ReadingResearchQuarterly,37(2), 150-176. 295 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. Beck,I. L., & McKeown,M. G. (2006). Improvingcomprehensionwithquestioning theauthor.NewYork:Scholastic. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Worthy,J.,Sandora,C. A., & Kucan, L. (1996). Questioningtheauthor:A year-longclassroomimplementationtoengagestudents withtext.ElementarySchoolJournal,96,385-414. Bhat,P.,Griffin,C. C, & Sindelair,P.T. (2003). Phonologicalawarenessinstruction formiddleschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly, 26,73-87. Bhattacharya,A.,& Ehri,L. C. (2004). Graphosyllabicanalysishelpsadolescentstrug- glingreadersreadandspellwords.JournalofLearningDisabilities,37,331-348. Biancarosa,G.,& Snow,C. E. (2004). Readingnext:A visionforactionand research inmiddleand highschoolliteracy.A reporttotheCarnegieCorporationofNew York.Washington,DC: AllianceforExcellentEducation. Bryant,D. P.,Vaughn,S., Linan-Thomason,S., Ugel,N., Hamff,A., & Hougen,M. (2000). Readingoutcomesforstudentswithandwithoutreadingdisabilitiesingen- eraleducationmiddle-schoolcontentareaclasses.LearningDisabilitiesQuarterly, 23,238-252. Carlisle,J.F. & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improvingreadingcomprehension:Research- basedprinciplesandpractices.Baltimore:York. Chan,L. K. S. (1996). Combinedstrategyandattributionaltrainingforseventh-grade averageandpoorreaders.JournalofResearchinReading,19, 111-127. Cohen,J.(1988). Statisticalpoweranalysisfor thebehavioralsciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Cooper,H. (1998). Synthesizingresearch:A guidefor literaturereviews(3rded.). ThousandOaks,CA: Sage. Curtis,M. E., & Longo,A. M. (1999). Whenadolescentscan't read: Methodsand materialsthatwork.Cambridge,MA: Brookline. Daly,E. J.,& Martens,B. K. (1994).A comparisonofthreeinterventionsforincreasing oral readingperformance:Applicationof theinstructionalhierarchy.Journalof AppliedBehavioralAnalysis,27,459-469. DiCecco,V.M.,& Gleason,M. M. (2002). Usinggraphicorganizerstoattainrelational knowledgefromexpositorytexts.JournalofLearningDisabilities,35, 306-320. Dole,J.A.,Duffy,G. G.,Roehler,L. R.,& Pearson,P.D. (1991). Movingfromtheold tothenew:Researchonreadingcomprehensioninstruction.ReviewofEducational Research,67(2), 239-264. Francis,D. J.,Fletcher,J.M, Catts,H.W.,& Tomblin,J.B. (2004). Dimensionsaffect- ingtheassessmentofreadingcomprehension.In S. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl(Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionand assessment(pp. 369-394). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Freeland,J.T., Skinner,C. H., Jackson,B., McDaniel, C. E., & Smith,S. (2000). Measuringandincreasingsilentreadingcomprehensionrates:Empiricallyvalidat- inga repeatedreadingsintervention.PsychologyintheSchools,37,415-429. Fuchs,D., Fuchs,L. S., Mathes,P.,& Simmons,D. (1997). Peer-assistedlearning strategies:Makingclassroommoreresponsivetodiversity.AmericanEducational ResearchJournal,34(), 174-206. Fuchs,L. S., Fuchs,D., & Kazdan,S. (1999). Effectsofpeer-assistedlearningstrate- gieson highschoolstudentswithseriousreadingproblems.Remedialand Special Education,20, 309-319. Gardhill,M. C, & Jitendra,A. K. (1999). Advancedstorymapinstruction:Effectson thereadingcomprehensionofstudentswithlearningdisabilities.JournalofSpecial Education,33,2-17, 28. 296 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis Gersten,R.,Fuchs,L. S., Williams,J.P.,& Baker,S. (2001). Teachingreadingcom- prehensionstrategiesto studentswithlearningdisabilities:A reviewofresearch. ReviewofEducationalResearch,71,279-320. Grigg,W.S.,Daane,M. C, Jin,Y.,& Campbell,J.R. (2003). Thenation'sreportcard: Reading2002 (NCES 2003-521).Washington,DC: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,InstituteofEducationSciences.Retrieved January25,2006,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003521 Guthrie,J.T.,Wigfield,A., & VonSecker,C. (2001). Effectsofintegratedinstruction onmotivationandstrategyuseinreading.JournalofEducationalPsychology,92(2), 331-341. Hasselbring,T.S.,& Goin,L. I. (2004).Literacyinstructionforolderstrugglingreadings: Whatistheroleoftechnology?ReadingandWritingQuarterly,20, 123-144. Heilman,A.W.,Blair,T.R.,& Rupley,W.H. (1998). Principlesandpracticesofteach- ingreading(9thed.). Columbus,OH: Merrill/PrenticeHall. Jenkins,J.R.,Heliotis,J.,Stein,M. L., & Haynes,M. (1987). Improvingreadingcom- prehensionbyusingparagraphrestatements.ExceptionalChildren,54,54-59. Jimenez,R. T.,Garcia,G. E., & Pearson,P.D. (1995). Threechildren,twolanguages, and strategicreading:Case studiesin bilingual/monolingualreading.American EducationalResearchJournal,32,67-97. Jimenez,R. T.,Garcia,G. E., & Pearson,P.D. (1996). Thereadingstrategiesofbilin- gualLatinostudentswhoaresuccessfulEnglishreaders:Opportunitiesandobsta- cles.ReadingResearchQuarterly,31,90-1 12. InstituteofEducationSciences.(2003). WhatWorksClearinghousestudyreviewstan- dards.RetrievedJanuary10,2005,fromhttp://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewpro- cess/study_standards_final.pdf Jitendra,A. K., Hoppes,M. K., & Xin,Y. P.(2000). Enhancingmainideacomprehen- sionforstudentswithlearningproblems:Theroleofa summarizationstrategyand self-monitoringinstruction.JournalofSpecialEducation,34, 127-139. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescentsand literacy:Readingfor the 21st century. Washington,DC: AllianceforExcellentEducation. Kamil,M. L. (2004). Vocabularyandcomprehensioninstruction:Summaryandimpli- cationsoftheNationalReadingPanelfindings.InP.McCardle& V.Chhabra(Eds.), The voice of evidencein readingresearch(pp. 213-234). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes. Kim,A.,Vaughn,S.,Wanzek,J.,& Wei,S. (2004). Graphicorganizersandtheireffects on thereadingcomprehensionof studentswithlearningdisabilities.Journalof LearningDisabilities,37, 105-118. Kintsch,W.,& Kintsch,E. (2004). Comprehension.InS. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl(Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionand assessment(pp. 71-92). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Klingner,J.K., & Vaughn,S. (1996). Reciprocalteachingofreadingcomprehension strategiesforstudentswithlearningdisabilitieswhouse Englishas a secondlan- guage.ElementarySchoolJournal,96,275-293. Klingner,J.K.,Vaughn,S., & Boardman,A. (2007). Teachingreadingcomprehension tostudentswithlearningdisabilities.NewYork:Guilford. Kuhn,M. R.,& Stahl,S. A. (2003). Fluency:A reviewofdevelopmentalandremedial practices.JournalofEducationalPsychology,95(1), 3-21. Lauterbach,S. L., & BenderW. N. (1995). Cognitivestrategyinstructionforreading comprehension:A successforhighschoolfreshmen.HighSchoolJournal,79(1), 58-64. 297 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. MacArthur,C. A., & Haynes,J.B. (1995). StudentAssistantforLearningfromText (SALT): A hypermediareadingaid.JournalofLearningDisabilities,28, 150-159. Mastropieri,M. A.,Scruggs,T. E., Bakken,J.P.& Whedon,C. (1996). Readingcom- prehension:A synthesisofresearchinlearningdisabilities.AdvancesinLearning andBehavioralDisabilities,10B,201-227. Mastropieri,M. A., Scruggs,T. E., & Graetz,J.E. (2003). Readingcomprehension instructionforsecondarystudents:Challengesforstrugglingstudentsandteachers. LearningDisabilityQuarterly,26, 103-116. Mastropieri,M. A.,Scruggs,T.,Mohler,L.,Beranek,M.,Spencer,V, Boon,R.T.,etal. (2001). Can middleschoolstudentswithseriousreadingdifficultieshelpeachother andlearnanything?JournalofLearningDisabilities,16, 18-27. Mercer,C. D., Campbell,K. U., Miller,M. D., Mercer,K. D., & Lane,H. B. (2000). Effectsofa readingfluencyinterventionformiddleschoolerswithspecificlearning disabilities.LearningDisabilitiesResearchandPractice,15, 179-189. Moore,P. J.,& Scevak,J.J.(1995). The effectsofstrategytrainingon highschool students'learningfromsciencetexts.EuropeanJournalofPsychologyofEducation, 70,401^10. NationalInstituteforLiteracy.(2001). Putreadingfirst:Theresearchbuildingblocks forteachingchildrentoread.Jessup,MD: Author. NationalReadingPanel.(2000). Reportofthenationalreadingpanel: Teachingchil- drento read. Rockville,MD: National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development. No ChildLeftBehindActof2001,Pub.L. No. 107-110,115Stat.1425(2002). Palincsar,A. S., Brown,A. L., & Martin,S. M. (1987). Peerinteractioninreading comprehensioninstruction.EducationalPsychologist,22,231-253. Paris,S. G., Carpenter,R. D., Paris,A. H., & Hamilton,E. E. (2004). Spuriousand genuinecorrelatesofchildren'sreadingcomprehension.InS. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionandassessment(pp. 131-160).Mahwah, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Paris,S. G., Lipson,M. Y., & Wixson,K. K. (1983). Becominga strategicreader. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology,8(3), 293-316. Paris,S. G.,Wasik,B. A.,& Turner,J.C. (1991). Thedevelopmentofstrategicreaders. InP.D. Pearson,R. Barr,M. L., Kamil,& P.Mosenthal(Eds.),Handbookofreading research(Vol.2,pp.609-640). WhitePlains,NY: Longman. Penney,C. G. (2002). Teachingdecodingskillstopoorreadersinhighschool.Journal ofLiteracyResearch,34,99-118. Pressley,M. (2000). Whatshouldcomprehensioninstructionbe theinstructionof?In M. Kamil,P.Mosenthal,P.Pearson,& R. Barr(Eds.),Handbookofreadingresearch (Vol.3,pp.545-562). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Pressley,M., & Afflerbach,P.(1995). Verbalprotocolsofreading:Thenatureofcon- structivelyresponsivereading.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. RAND ReadingStudyGroup.(2002). Readingforunderstanding:Towardan R&D programinreadingcomprehension.SantaMonica,CA: RAND. Raudenbush,S. W.(2005). Learningfromattemptstoimproveschooling:Thecontri- butionofmethodologicaldiversity.EducationalResearcher,34(5), 25-31. Rosenshine,B., & Meister,C. (1994). Reciprocalteaching:A reviewoftheresearch. ReviewofEducationalResearch,64(4), 479-530. Rosenthal,R.,& Rubin,D. B. (1986). Meta-analyticproceduresforcombiningstudies withmultipleeffectsizes.PsychologicalBulletin,99(3), 400-406. 298 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis Scott,T.M, & Shearer-Lingo,A. (2002). Theeffectsofreadingfluencyinstructionon theacademicandbehavioralsuccessofmiddleschoolstudentsina self-contained EBD classroom.PreventingSchoolFailure,46, 167-173. Scruggs,T. E., Mastropieri,M. A., & Casto,G. (1987). The quantitativesynthesisof singlesubjectresearch.RemedialandSpecialEducation,8(2), 24-33. Shadish,W. R. (2002). Revisitingfieldexperimentation:Field notesforthefuture. PsychologicalMethods,7(1), 3-18. Shadish,W.R. & Haddock,C. K. (1994). Combiningestimatesofeffectsize. InH. Cooper& L. Hedges(Eds.), Thehandbookofresearchersynthesis(pp. 261-284). NewYork:Sage. Snow,C. E. (2003). Assessmentofreadingcomprehension.InA. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinkingreadingcomprehension(pp.192-206). New York: Guilford. Steventon,C. E., & Frederick,L. D. (2003). The effectsof repeatedreadingson studentperformanceinthecorrectivereadingprogram.JournalofDirectInstruction, 3, 17-27. Strong,A. C, Wehby,J.H., Falk, K. B., & Lane, K. L. (2004). The impactof a structuredreadingcurriculumandrepeatedreadingon theperformanceofjunior highstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.SchoolPsychologyReview, 55,561-581. Swanson,H. L. (1999). ReadingresearchforstudentswithLD: A meta-analysisof interventionoutcomes.JournalofLearningDisabilities,32,504-532. Swanson,H. L., & Hoskyn,M. (2001). Instructingadolescentswithlearningdisabili- ties:A componentand compositeanalysis.LearningDisabilitiesResearchand Practice,16,109-120. Swanson,H. L.,Hoskyn,M, & Lee,C. (1999). Interventionsforstudentswithlearning disabilities.NewYork:Guilford. Underwood,T., & Pearson,D. P. (2004). Teachingstrugglingadolescentreadersto comprehendwhattheyread.InT. L. Jetton& J.A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescentliteracy researchandpractice(pp. 135-161). NewYork:Guilford. Vallecorsa,A. L., & deBettencourt,L. U. (1997). Usinga mappingproceduretoteach readingand writingskills to middlegrade studentswithlearningdisabilities. EducationandTreatmentofChildren,20, 173-189. Valleley,R. J.,& Shriver,M. D. (2003). An examinationoftheeffectsofrepeated readingswith secondarystudents.Journalof Behavioral Education, 12(1), 55-76. Wanzek,J.,Vaughn,S.,Wexler,J.,Swanson,E. A.,& Edmonds,M. (2006). A synthe- sisofspellingandreadinginterventionsandtheireffectson thespellingoutcomes forstudentswithLD. JournalofLearningDisabilities,39(6), 528-543. Wilder,A. A., & Williams,J.P.(2001). Studentswithseverelearningdisabilitiescan learnhigherordercomprehensionskills.JournalofEducationalPsychology,93, 268-278. Williams,J.P.,Brown,L. G., Silverstein,A. K., & deCani,J.S. (1994). An instruc- tionalprogramincomprehensionofnarrativethemesforadolescentswithlearning disabilities.LearningDisabilitiesQuarterly,17,205-221. Wong,B. Y. L., & Jones,W. (1982). Increasingmetacomprehensioninlearningdis- abled and normallyachievingstudentsthroughself-questingtraining.Learning DisabilityQuarterly,5,228-240. Woodruff,S.,Schumaker,J.B.,& Deschler,D. (2002). Theeffectsofan intensiveread- inginterventiononthedecodingskillsofhighschoolstudentswithreadingdeficits 299 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Edmondsetal. (Report No. RR-15). Washington,DC: Special Education Programs.(ERIC DocumentReproductionServiceNo. ED46929) Authors MEAGHAN S. EDMONDS, PhD, is a researchassociate at theVaughnGross Centerfor Reading and Language Artsat theUniversityof Texas at Austin,Meadows Centerfor PreventingEducationalRisk,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail:msedmonds@mail.utexas.edu.She holdsa doctoratein educationalpsychology,a master'sdegreeincurriculumand instruction,and an MEd in programevaluation.Her currentresearchis focusedon readingcomprehensionand pol- icyevaluation. SHARON VAUGHN, PhD, holdstheH. E. Hartfelder/SouthlandCorporationRegentsChair inHumanDevelopmentandistheexecutivedirectoroftheMeadows CenterforPreventing Educational Risk at theUniversityof Texas at Austin,College of EducationSZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail:srvaughnum@aol.com.She was theeditorinchiefoftheJournalofLearningDisabilitiesandthecoeditorofLearning Disabilities Research and Practice. She is the recipientof theAmericanEducational ResearchAssociationSpecial EducationSIG DistinguishedResearcheraward.She is cur- rentlytheprincipalinvestigatororcoprincipalinvestigatoronseveralInstituteforEducation Science, National Institutefor Child Health and Human Development, and Officeof Special EducationProgramsresearchgrantsinvestigatingeffectiveinterventionsforstu- dentswithreadingdifficultiesas wellas studentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners. JADE WEXLER, PhD, is a research associate at the Meadows Center forPreventing EducationalRisk at theUniversityofTexas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: jwexler@mail.utexas.edu. Herresearchinterestsareinterventionsforadolescentswithreadingdifficulties,response tointervention,and teachereducation. COLLEEN REUTEBUCH, PhD, servesas a projectcoordinatorfortheCenterforResearch oftheEducationalAchievementandTeachingofEnglishLanguage Learners(CREATE) ProjectattheMeadows CenterforPreventingEducationalRiskattheUniversityofTexas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 787 12- 0365; e-mail: ckreutebuch@mail.utexas.edu.Her researchinterestsincludereadingand contentarea interventions. AMORY CABLE, PhD, is a speech-languagepathologistand is currentlywritingsumma- riesofresearchfora speech-languageclinical database. Via Siciliani 44, Bisceglie, BA CAP 70052; e-mail:amory.cable@gmail.com. KATHRYN KLINGLER TACKETT, MEd, is a doctoralcandidateattheUniversityofTexas at Austinin theDepartmentof Special Education(in learningdisabilitiesand behavior disorders),anassistantinstructorwiththeDepartmentofSpecial Education,anda research assistantwiththeCenteron Instruction,Special EducationStrand,whichis housedatthe VaughnGross CenterforReading and Language Arts,Universityof Texas at Austin, College of Education SZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: katieklingler@ mail.utexas.edu. JENNIFER WICK SCHNAKENBERG is theassociate directoroftheTexas ReadingFirst InitiativeattheVaughnGrossCenterforReadingandLanguage ArtsattheUniversityof Texas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: jennwick@mail.utexas.edu. She providestechnicalassistance to state-level,district-level, and campus-level personnel.She trainspersonnelon using assessment,implementingthethree-tiermodel effectively,and providingeffectiveand comprehensivereadinginstructionto all students.In addition,she supervisestechnical assistanceand professionaldevelopmentteammembers. 300 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Recommended

Foundations of Mathematics Achievement
Foundations of Mathematics Achievement Foundations of Mathematics Achievement
Foundations of Mathematics Achievement Sarah Vester
 
Coi Comprehension.
Coi Comprehension.Coi Comprehension.
Coi Comprehension.geisonrodriguez
 
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasks
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasksDeveloping staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasks
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasksFiona Henchley
 
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...dbpublications
 
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805Terumi Miyazoe (tell me, miya zoe)
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationChrisoulaKoutoulas
 
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshare
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slidesharePraxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshare
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshareTania Sterling
 
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14apeb1va
 

Recommended

Foundations of Mathematics Achievement
Foundations of Mathematics Achievement Foundations of Mathematics Achievement
Foundations of Mathematics Achievement Sarah Vester
 
Coi Comprehension.
Coi Comprehension.Coi Comprehension.
Coi Comprehension.geisonrodriguez
 
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasks
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasksDeveloping staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasks
Developing staff understanding and implementation of maths-rich tasksFiona Henchley
 
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...
Concurrent Validity and Stability of the Maze Task in a Sample of College Stu...dbpublications
 
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805
The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805Terumi Miyazoe (tell me, miya zoe)
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationChrisoulaKoutoulas
 
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshare
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slidesharePraxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshare
Praxis proposal ppt t sterling slideshareTania Sterling
 
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14
Convocatória ag ap eb1 ji_vendas 22out14apeb1va
 
Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisJackie1044
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesCarmenlink
 
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptxVelasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptxArnoldIldefonso
 
Interactive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programsInteractive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programstech4change
 
Literate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentationLiterate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentationWalden University
 
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copyBarker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copyWilliam Kritsonis
 
Literate environment assignment
Literate environment assignmentLiterate environment assignment
Literate environment assignmentlschipper
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesCarmenlink
 
Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment Analysishallm1
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisrittere
 
Literate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis PresentationLiterate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis Presentationvalreese
 
Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation Danielle Evans
 
Literacy power point
Literacy power pointLiteracy power point
Literacy power pointtannprice
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationKim Sexton
 
Creating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentationCreating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentationGrazia Russo
 
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdfSample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdfRowellDCTrinidad
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysislivepeace
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysislivepeace
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisshancam08
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationanbailey
 
What can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariahWhat can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariahannes86
 
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers iveyReflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers iveyannes86
 

More Related Content

Similar to Synthesis reading comprehension-edmonds

Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisJackie1044
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesCarmenlink
 
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptxVelasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptxArnoldIldefonso
 
Interactive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programsInteractive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programstech4change
 
Literate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentationLiterate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentationWalden University
 
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copyBarker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copyWilliam Kritsonis
 
Literate environment assignment
Literate environment assignmentLiterate environment assignment
Literate environment assignmentlschipper
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesCarmenlink
 
Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment Analysishallm1
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisrittere
 
Literate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis PresentationLiterate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis Presentationvalreese
 
Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation Danielle Evans
 
Literacy power point
Literacy power pointLiteracy power point
Literacy power pointtannprice
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationKim Sexton
 
Creating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentationCreating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentationGrazia Russo
 
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdfSample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdfRowellDCTrinidad
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysislivepeace
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysislivepeace
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisshancam08
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationanbailey
 

Similar to Synthesis reading comprehension-edmonds (20)

Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment Analysis
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilities
 
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptxVelasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
Velasco et al. BSN presentation.pptx
 
Interactive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programsInteractive reading computer programs
Interactive reading computer programs
 
Literate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentationLiterate environmentanalysispresentation
Literate environmentanalysispresentation
 
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copyBarker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
Barker, kimberly the power of play nftej v21 n3 2011 copy
 
Literate environment assignment
Literate environment assignmentLiterate environment assignment
Literate environment assignment
 
reading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilitiesreading instruction and learning disabilities
reading instruction and learning disabilities
 
Literate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment AnalysisLiterate Environment Analysis
Literate Environment Analysis
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysis
 
Literate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis PresentationLiterate Environment Analysis Presentation
Literate Environment Analysis Presentation
 
Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation Literate environment presentation
Literate environment presentation
 
Literacy power point
Literacy power pointLiteracy power point
Literacy power point
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentation
 
Creating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentationCreating a literate environment power point presentation
Creating a literate environment power point presentation
 
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdfSample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
Sample-Annotated-Bibliography.pdf
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
 
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysisEduc6706 literate environment analysis
Educ6706 literate environment analysis
 
Literate environment analysis
Literate environment analysisLiterate environment analysis
Literate environment analysis
 
Literate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentationLiterate environment analysis presentation
Literate environment analysis presentation
 

More from annes86

What can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariahWhat can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariahannes86
 
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers iveyReflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers iveyannes86
 
Coteaching in language arts tobin
Coteaching in language arts tobinCoteaching in language arts tobin
Coteaching in language arts tobinannes86
 
Collaboration and coteaching duchart
Collaboration and coteaching duchartCollaboration and coteaching duchart
Collaboration and coteaching duchartannes86
 
Struggling readers johannessen
Struggling readers johannessenStruggling readers johannessen
Struggling readers johannessenannes86
 
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughnReciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughnannes86
 

More from annes86 (6)

What can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariahWhat can we do for mariah
What can we do for mariah
 
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers iveyReflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers ivey
 
Coteaching in language arts tobin
Coteaching in language arts tobinCoteaching in language arts tobin
Coteaching in language arts tobin
 
Collaboration and coteaching duchart
Collaboration and coteaching duchartCollaboration and coteaching duchart
Collaboration and coteaching duchart
 
Struggling readers johannessen
Struggling readers johannessenStruggling readers johannessen
Struggling readers johannessen
 
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughnReciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn
Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn
 

Recently uploaded

Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-design
Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-designKeynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-design
Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-designMIPLM
 
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of management
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of managementHierarchy of management that covers different levels of management
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of managementmkooblal
 
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher EducationIntroduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Educationpboyjonauth
 
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdf
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdfLike-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdf
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdfMr Bounab Samir
 
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptx
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptxPlanning a health career 4th Quarter.pptx
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptxLigayaBacuel1
 
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptx
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptxECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptx
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptxiammrhaywood
 
Full Stack Web Development Course for Beginners
Full Stack Web Development Course for BeginnersFull Stack Web Development Course for Beginners
Full Stack Web Development Course for BeginnersSabitha Banu
 
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choom
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choomENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choom
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choomnelietumpap1
 
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdf
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdfACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdf
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdfSpandanaRallapalli
 
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptx
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptxEmployee wellbeing at the workplace.pptx
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptxNirmalaLoungPoorunde1
 
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...JhezDiaz1
 
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️9953056974 Low Rate Call Girls In Saket, Delhi NCR
 
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptx
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptxTypes of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptx
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptxEyham Joco
 
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdfAMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdfphamnguyenenglishnb
 
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERP
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERPWhat is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERP
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
 
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.arsicmarija21
 
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up Friday
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up FridayQuarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up Friday
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up FridayMakMakNepo
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-design
Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-designKeynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-design
Keynote by Prof. Wurzer at Nordex about IP-design
 
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of management
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of managementHierarchy of management that covers different levels of management
Hierarchy of management that covers different levels of management
 
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
 
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher EducationIntroduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
Introduction to ArtificiaI Intelligence in Higher Education
 
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdf
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdfLike-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdf
Like-prefer-love -hate+verb+ing & silent letters & citizenship text.pdf
 
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptx
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptxPlanning a health career 4th Quarter.pptx
Planning a health career 4th Quarter.pptx
 
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptx
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptxECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptx
ECONOMIC CONTEXT - PAPER 1 Q3: NEWSPAPERS.pptx
 
Full Stack Web Development Course for Beginners
Full Stack Web Development Course for BeginnersFull Stack Web Development Course for Beginners
Full Stack Web Development Course for Beginners
 
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choom
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choomENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choom
ENGLISH6-Q4-W3.pptxqurter our high choom
 
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdf
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdfACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdf
ACC 2024 Chronicles. Cardiology. Exam.pdf
 
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptx
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptxEmployee wellbeing at the workplace.pptx
Employee wellbeing at the workplace.pptx
 
Raw materials used in Herbal Cosmetics.pptx
Raw materials used in Herbal Cosmetics.pptxRaw materials used in Herbal Cosmetics.pptx
Raw materials used in Herbal Cosmetics.pptx
 
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
ENGLISH 7_Q4_LESSON 2_ Employing a Variety of Strategies for Effective Interp...
 
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
call girls in Kamla Market (DELHI) 🔝 >༒9953330565🔝 genuine Escort Service 🔝✔️✔️
 
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptx
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptxTypes of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptx
Types of Journalistic Writing Grade 8.pptx
 
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdfAMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
 
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERP
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERPWhat is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERP
What is Model Inheritance in Odoo 17 ERP
 
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.
AmericanHighSchoolsprezentacijaoskolama.
 
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up Friday
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up FridayQuarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up Friday
Quarter 4 Peace-education.pptx Catch Up Friday
 
Model Call Girl in Tilak Nagar Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
Model Call Girl in Tilak Nagar Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝Model Call Girl in Tilak Nagar Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
Model Call Girl in Tilak Nagar Delhi reach out to us at 🔝9953056974🔝
 

Synthesis reading comprehension-edmonds

  • 1. A Synthesis of Reading Interventions and Effects on Reading Comprehension Outcomes for Older Struggling Readers Author(s): Meaghan S. Edmonds, Sharon Vaughn, Jade Wexler, Colleen Reutebuch, Amory Cable, Kathryn Klingler Tackett and Jennifer Wick Schnakenberg Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Mar., 2009), pp. 262-300 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071166 . Accessed: 13/06/2013 10:46 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 2. A SynthesisofReadingInterventionsand EffectsonReadingComprehension OutcomesforOlderStrugglingReaders ReviewofEducationalResearch Spring2009, Vol.79,No. 1,pp. 262-300 DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325998 © 2009 AERA. http://rer.aera.net MeaghanS. Edmonds,SharonVaughn,JadeWexler, ColleenReutebuch,AmoryCable,KathrynKlingler Tackett,andJenniferWickSchnakenberg UniversityofTexasatAustin Thisarticlereportsa synthesisofinterventionstudiesconductedbetween 1994 and 2004 witholderstudents(Grades6-12) withreadingdifficulties. Interventionsaddressingdecoding,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehension wereincludediftheymeasuredtheeffectsonreadingcomprehension.Twenty- ninestudieswerelocatedandsynthesized.Thirteenstudiesmetcriteriafora meta-analysis,yieldingan effectsize (ES) of0.89fortheweightedaverage of the differencein comprehensionoutcomes betweentreatmentand comparisonstudents.Word-levelinterventionswereassociated withES = 0.34incomprehensionoutcomesbetweentreatmentandcomparisonstudents. Implicationsforcomprehensioninstructionforolderstrugglingreadersare described. Keywords: reading,meta-analysis,comprehension. Althougheducatorshave historicallyemphasizedimprovingstudents'reading proficiencyintheelementaryschool years,readinginstructionforsecondarystu- dentswithreadingdifficultieshas been less prevalent.As a result,secondary studentswithreadingdifficultiesare infrequentlyprovidedreadinginstruction, thuswideningthegap betweentheirachievementand thatof theirgrade-level peers.Recentlegislation,suchas theNo ChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB; 2002), has promptedschools to improvereadinginstructionforall students,includingthose inmiddleandhighschool.Manysecondarystudentscontinuetodemonstratedif- ficultieswithreading,andeducatorscontinuetoseekinformationonbestpractices forinstructingthesestudents. The NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP) administereda read- ing assessmentin 2002 to approximately343,000 studentsin Grades 4 and 8. AccordingtotheNAEP data,therewasnosignificantchangeinprogressforstudents between1992 and 2002, and Grade 8 scores in 2003 actuallydecreased(Grigg, Daane, Jin,& Campbell,2003). TheNAEP also conducteda long-termtrendassess- mentin reading,whichdocumentedperformancefrom1971 to 2004 forstudents ages 9, 13, and 17. Althoughscores forthe 9-year-oldsshowed improvements 262 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 3. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis comparedtothescoresforthisagein1971and1999,thiswasnotthecaseforthe 13-and17-year-olds.Althoughthescoresatthe75thand90thpercentileforthe 13-year-oldssignificantlyimprovedfrom1971to2004,therewerenosignificant differencesbetweenscoresin1999and2004.Forthe17-year-olds,therewereno significantdifferencesatanyofthepercentilesselectedin2004,norweretheredif- ferencesbetweenthe1971and1999scores.Thesedatasuggestthattheeducation systemis noteffectivelypreparingsomeadolescentsforreadingsuccessandthat informationoneffectiveinstructionalpracticesisneededtoimprovethesetrends. Expectations Secondarystudentsfaceincreasingaccountabilitymeasuresalongwitha great deal ofpressureto meetthedemandsofmoredifficultcurriculaandcontent (Swanson& Hoskyn,2001).Inthepastdecade,studentshavebecomeresponsible forlearningmorecomplexcontentata rapidpacetomeetstatestandardsandto passoutcomeassessments(Woodruff,Schumaker,& Deschler,2002). Oureducationalsystemexpectsthatsecondarystudentsareabletodecodefluently andcomprehendmaterialwithchallengingcontent(Alvermann,2002).Somestrug- glingsecondaryreaders,however,lacksufficientadvanceddecoding,fluency,vocabu- lary,andcomprehensionskillstomasterthecomplexcontent(Kamil,2003). Ina climatewheremanysecondarystudentscontinuetostrugglewithreading andschoolsfaceincreasinglydifficultaccountabilitydemands,itis essentialto identifytheinstructionthatwillbenefitstrugglingsecondaryreaders.Secondary teachersrequireknowledgeofbestpracticestoprovideappropriateinstruction, preventstudentsfromfallingfartherbehind,andhelpbringstrugglingreaders closertoreadingforknowledgeandpleasure. ComprehensionResearch Theultimategoalofreadinginstructionatthesecondaryleveliscomprehension- gainingmeaningfromtext.A numberoffactorscontributetostudents'notbeing abletocomprehendtext.Comprehensioncanbreakdownwhenstudentshave problemswithone or moreofthefollowing:(a) decodingwords,including structuralanalysis;(b) readingtextwithadequatespeedandaccuracy(fluency); (c) understandingthemeaningsofwords;(d) relatingcontenttopriorknowl- edge;(e) applyingcomprehensionstrategies;and(f)monitoringunderstanding (Carlisle& Rice,2002; NationalInstituteforLiteracy,2001; RAND Reading StudyGroup,2002). Becausemanysecondaryteachersassumethatstudentswhocanreadwords accuratelycanalsocomprehendandlearnfromtextsimplybyreading,theyoften neglectteachingstudentshowtoapproachtexttobetterunderstandthecontent.In addition,becauseofincreasingaccountability,manyteachersemphasizethecon- tentwhileneglectingtoinstructstudentsonhowtoreadforlearningandunder- standing(Pressley,2000; RAND ReadingStudyGroup,2002). Finally,the readabilitylevelofsometextusedinsecondaryclassroomsmaybe toohighfor below-gradelevelreaders,andthe"unfriendliness"ofsometextcanresultincom- prehensionchallengesformanystudents(Mastropieri,Scruggs,& Graetz,2003). TheRAND ReadingStudyGroup(2002) createda heuristicforconceptual- izingreadingcomprehension.Fundamentally,comprehensionoccursthroughan interactionamongthreecriticalelements:thereader,thetext,andtheactivity.The 263 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 4. Edmondsetal. capacityofthereader,thevaluesascribedtotextandtextavailability,andreader's activitiesareamongthemanyvariablesthatareinfluencedanddeterminedbythe socioculturalcontextthatbothshapesandisshapedbyeachofthethreeelements. Thissynthesisaddressesseveralcriticalaspectsofthisproposedheuristic- the activityorinterventionprovidedforstudentsatriskand,whendescribedinthe study,thetextthatwas used.Because thesynthesisfocuseson intervention research,questionsaboutwhatelementsofinterventionswereassociatedwith readingcomprehensionwereaddressed.Thissynthesiswasnotdesignedtoaddress othercriticalissues,includingthevaluesandbackgroundofreadersandteachers andthecontextinwhichteachersandlearnersinteracted.Manyofthesocialand affectivevariablesassociatedwithimprovedmotivationandinterestintextfor olderreadersandhowthesevariablesinfluencedoutcomesarepartoftheheuristic ofreadingcomprehension,butwewereunabletoaddresstheminthissynthesis. RationaleandResearchQuestion Manyoftheinstructionalpracticessuggestedforpoorreaderswerederivedfrom observing,questioning,andaskinggoodandpoorreadersto"thinkaloud"while theyread(Dole,Duffy,Roehler,& Pearson,1991;Heilman,Blair,& Rupley,1998; Jimenez,Garcia,& Pearson,1995,1996).Thesereportsdescribedgoodreadersas coordinatinga setofhighlycomplexandwell-developedskillsandstrategiesbefore, during,andafterreadingso thattheycouldunderstandandlearnfromtextand rememberwhattheyread(Paris,Wasik,& Turner,1991).Whencomparedwithgood readers,poorreaderswereconsiderablylessstrategic(Paris,Lipson,& Wixson, 1983).Goodreadersusedthefollowingskillsandstrategies:(a) readingwordsrap- idlyandaccurately;(b)notingthestructureandorganizationoftext;(c) monitoring theirunderstandingwhilereading;(d) usingsummaries;(e) makingpredictions, checkingthemastheyread,andrevisingandevaluatingthemasneeded;(g)integrat- ingwhattheyknowaboutthetopicwithnewlearning;and(h)makinginferencesand usingvisualization(Jenkins,Heliotis,Stein,& Haynes,1987;Kamil,2003;Klingner, Vaughn,& Boardman,2007; Mastropieri,Scruggs,Bakken,& Whedon,1996; Pressley& Afflerbach,1995;Swanson,1999;Wong& Jones,1982). Previoussyntheseshaveidentifiedcriticalinterventionelementsforeffective readinginstructionforstudentswithdisabilitiesacrossgradelevels(e.g.,Gersten, Fuchs,Williams,& Baker,2001;Mastropierietal., 1996;Swanson,1999).For example,weknowthatexplicitstrategyinstructionyieldsstrongeffectsforcom- prehensionforstudentswithlearningdifficultiesanddisabilities(Biancarosa& Snow,2004;Gerstenetal.,2001;NationalReadingPanel[NRP],2000;RAND ReadingStudyGroup,2002;Swanson,1999).Wealsoknowthateffectivecom- prehensioninstructionintheelementarygradesteachesstudentstosummarize,use graphicorganizers,generateandanswerquestions,andmonitortheircomprehen- sion(Mastropierietal.,1996;Kamil,2004). However,despiteimprovedknowledgeabouteffectivereadingcomprehension broadly,muchlessisknownregardingeffectiveinterventionsandreadinginstruc- tionforstudentswithreadingdifficultiesinthemiddleandhighschoolgrades (Curtis& Longo,1999).Thesynthesespreviouslydiscussedfocusedonstudents identifiedforspecialeducation,examinedspecificcomponentsofreading,anddid notpresentfindingsforolderreaders.Inrecognitionofthisvoidintheresearch, thereportoncomprehensionfromtheRANDReadingStudyGroup(2002)cited 264 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 5. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis theneedforadditionalknowledgeonhowbesttoorganizeinstructionforlow- achievingstudents.Wehaveconductedthefollowingsynthesistodeterminethe outcomeofcomprehension,wordstudy,vocabulary,andfluencyinterventionson readingcomprehensionof studentsin Grades6 through12. Furthermore,we extendedthesynthesistoincludeallstrugglingreaders,notjustthosewithidenti- fiedlearningdisabilities.Weaddressedthefollowingquestion:Howdoesinterven- tionresearchon decoding,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehensioninfluence comprehensionoutcomesforolderstudents(Grades6 through12)withreading difficultiesordisabilities? Method Forthissynthesis,we conducteda comprehensivesearchof theliterature througha three-stepprocess.Themethodsdescribedbelowweredevelopedduring priorsynthesesconductedbyteammembers(Kim,Vaughn,Wanzek& Wei,2004; Wanzek,Vaughn,Wexler,Swanson,& Edmonds,2006).Wefirstconducteda com- putersearchofERIC andPsycINFOtolocatestudiespublishedbetween1994and 2004.Weselectedthelastdecadeofstudiestoreflectthemostcurrentresearchon thistopic.Descriptorsorrootformsofthosedescriptors(readingdifficult*,learn- ingdisab*,LD, mildhandi*,milddisab*readingdisab*,at-risk,high-risk,read- ing delay*,learningdelay*,strugglereader,dyslex*,read*,comprehen*, vocabulary,fluen*,word,decod*,EnglishLanguageArts)wereusedinvarious combinationstocapturethegreatestpossiblenumberofarticles.Wealsosearched abstractsfrompriorsynthesesandreviewedreferencelistsinseminalstudiesto assurethatallstudieswereidentified. Inaddition,toassurecoverageandbecausea cumulativereviewwasnotlocated inelectronicdatabasesorreferencelists,a handsearchof11majorjournalsfrom 1998through2004wasconducted.Journalsexaminedinthishandsearchincluded AnnalsofDyslexia,ExceptionalChildren,JournalofEducationalPsychology, JournalofLearningDisabilities,JournalofSpecialEducation,LearningDisability Quarterly,LearningDisabilitiesResearchand Practice,ReadingResearch Quarterly,RemedialandSpecialEducation,andScientificStudiesofReading. Studieswereselectediftheymetallofthefollowingcriteria: • Participantswerestrugglingreaders.Strugglingreadersweredefinedas lowachieversorstudentswithunidentifiedreadingdifficulties,withdys- lexia,and/orwithreading,learning,orspeechorlanguagedisabilities. Studiesalsowereincludedifdisaggregateddatawereprovidedforstrug- glingreadersregardlessofthecharacteristicsofotherstudentsinthestudy. Onlydisaggregateddataonstrugglingreaderswereusedinthesynthesis. • ParticipantswereinGrades6 through12(ages11-21).Thisgraderange wasselectedbecauseitrepresentsthemostcommongradesdescribing secondarystudents.Whena samplealsoincludedolderoryoungerstu- dentsanditcouldbedeterminedthatthesamplemeanagewaswithinthe targetedrange,thestudywasaccepted. • Studieswereacceptedwhenresearchdesignsusedtreatment-comparison, single-group,orsingle-subjectdesigns. • Interventionconsistedofanytypeofreadinginstruction,includingword study,fluency,vocabulary,comprehension,ora combinationofthese. 265 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 6. Edmondsetal. • The languageofinstructionwas English. • Atleastone dependentmeasureassessedone ormoreaspectsofreading. • Data forcalculatingeffectsizes wereprovidedintreatment-comparison and single-groupstudies. • Interrateragreementforarticleacceptanceorrejectionwas calculatedby dividingthenumberof agreementsby thenumberof agreementsplus disagreementsandwas computedas 95%. Data Analysis Codingprocedures.We employedextensivecodingprocedurestoorganizeperti- nentinformationfromeach study.We adaptedpreviouslydesignedcode sheets thatwere developed forpast interventionsyntheses(Kim, Vaughn,Wanzek,& Wei, 2004). The code sheet included elements specified in the What Works Clearinghouse Design and ImplementationAssessment Device (Instituteof EducationSciences, 2003), a documentused toevaluatethequalityofstudies. The code sheetwas usedtorecordrelevantdescriptivecriteriaas well as results fromeach study,includingdataregardingparticipants(e.g.,number,sex,exception- alitytype),studydesign(e.g.,numberofconditions,assignmenttocondition),spec- ificationsabout conditions (e.g., intervention,comparison), clarityof causal inference,and reportedfindings.Participantinformationwas coded using four forced-choiceitems(socioeconomicstatus,risktype,theuse ofcriteriaforclassify- ingstudentswithdisabilities,andgender)andtwoopen-endeditems(age as described intextandrisktypeas describedintext).Similarly,designinformationwas gathered usinga combinationof forced-choice(e.g., researchdesign,assignmentmethod, fidelityofimplementation)and open-endeditems(selectioncriteria).Intervention and comparisoninformationwas coded using 10 open-endeditems(e.g., siteof intervention,roleofpersonimplementingintervention,durationofintervention)as wellas a writtendescriptionofthetreatmentandcomparisonconditions. Informationon clarityofcausal inferencewas gatheredusing11 itemsfortrue experimentaldesigns(e.g., samplesizes,attrition,plausibilityofinterventioncon- taminants)and 15 itemsforquasiexperimentaldesigns(e.g., equatingprocedures, attritionrates).Additionalitemsallowedcoderstodescribethemeasuresandindi- cate measurementcontaminants.Finally,theprecisionofoutcomeforbotheffect size estimationand statisticalreportingwas coded using a seriesof 10 forced- choiceyes-noquestions,includinginformationregardingassumptionsofindepen- dence,normality,andequal variance.Effectsizeswerecalculatedusinginformation relatedto outcomemeasures,directionof effects,and readingoutcomedata for each interventionorcomparisoncondition. Afterextensivetraining(morethan10hr)ontheuse andinterpretationofitems fromthecode sheet,interraterreliabilitywas determinedbyhavingsixratersinde- pendentlycode a singlearticle.Responsesfromthesixcoderswereusedtocalcu- late thepercentageof agreement(i.e., agreementsdivided by agreementsplus disagreements).An interraterreliabilityof.85 was achieved.Teamsofthreecoded each article,comparedresults,and resolvedany disagreementsin coding,with finaldecisionsreachedbyconsensus.To assureevenhigherreliabilitythan.85 on coding,anyitemthatwas notunambiguousto coderswas discusseduntila clear codingresponsecould be determined.Finally,tworaterswhohad achieved100% 266 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 7. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis reliabilityonitemsrelatedtooutcomeprecisionanddatacalculatedeffectsizesfor eachstudy. Afterthecodinghadbeencompleted,thestudiesweresummarizedina table format.Table1 containsinformationon studydesign,sample,andintervention implementation(e.g.,durationandimplementationpersonnel).InTable2,inter- ventiondescriptionsandeffectsizesforreadingoutcomesareorganizedbyeach study'sinterventiontypeanddesign.Effectsizesand/?valuesareprovidedwhen appropriatedatawereavailable. Effectsizecalculation.Effectsizeswerecalculatedforstudiesthatprovidedade- quateinformation.Forstudieslackingdatanecessarytocomputeeffectsizes,data weresummarizedusingfindingsfromstatisticalanalysesordescriptivestatistics. Fortreatment-comparisondesignstudies,theeffectsize,d,wascalculatedas the differencebetweenthemeanposttestscoreoftheparticipantsintheintervention conditionminusthemeanposttestscoreoftheparticipantsinthecomparison conditiondividedbythepooledstandarddeviation.Forstudiesinthissynthesisthat employeda treatment-comparisondesign,effectsizescanbeinterpretedasd = 0.20 issmall,d = 0.50ismedium,andd = 0.80isa largeeffect(Cohen,1988).Effects wereadjustedforpretestdifferenceswhendatawereprovided.Forsingle-group studies,effectsizeswerecalculatedas thestandardizedmeanchange(Cooper, 1998).Outcomesfromsingle-subjectstudieswerecalculatedasthepercentageof nonoverlappingdata(PND) (Scruggs,Mastropieri,& Casto,1987).PND iscalcu- latedas thepercentageofdatapointsduringthetreatmentphasethatarehigher thanthehighestdatapointfromthebaselinephase.PND wasselectedbecauseit offereda moreparsimoniousmeansofreportingoutcomesforsingle-subjectstud- iesandprovidedcommoncriteriaforcomparingtreatmentimpact. Results DataAnalysisPlan A rangeofstudydesignsandinterventiontypeswasrepresentedinthissynthe- sis.To fullyexplorethedata,weconductedseveraltypesofanalyses.First,we synthesizedstudyfeatures(e.g.,samplesizeandstudydesign)tohighlightsimi- larities,differences,andsalientelementsacrossthecorpusofstudies.Second,we conducteda meta-analysisofa subsetoftreatment-comparisondesignstudiesto determinetheoveralleffectofreadinginterventionsonstudents'readingcompre- hension.Inadditiontoanoverallpointestimateofreadinginterventioneffects,we reportedeffectsoncomprehensionbymeasurementandinterventiontype.Last, wesynthesizedtrendsandresultsbyinterventiontypeacrossallstudies,including single-groupandsingle-subjectdesignstudies. StudyFeatures A totalof29interventionstudies,allreportedinjournalarticles,metourcrite- riaforinclusioninthesynthesis.Studiesappearedina rangeofjournals(as canbe seeninthereferencelist)andweredistributedrelativelyevenlyacrosstheyearsof interest(1994 to 2004). Each study'sdesignand samplecharacteristicsare describedinTable 1. In thefollowingsections,we summarizeinformationon (textcontinuesonp. 285) 267 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 8. I I I- CO CO ^» If - J CO J CO ^» I II 1 |I I W) c G £ % <U <U C 52 ex, to c5 c3 ^ <S.I £ t2 e2 £ ^ s o g 6 jz M ^ &o^-s t«'~Hi_: c8 o ^ .3 2 8 2>.^ '+3^ - -C «5*2C C/5!> CO'^h<U a s E ^^^ s~ ^^? O ^- On r^ vo If II II Sfi II C O ^ O O co o ! lit! 1! fftf If 31 >, lll.il £■$§„,*%%%£%>§-Sllil ^^> I < « 2 a fi ^>< &S z < « o & cs a S ^< <^ 2 a £ g 268 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 9. I I I •I •§ -g £ £ 8VUH C C C fli fl> V*-'VUH O « «« «« g g fl> II I I I I I - -8 % % | pi II § -a S* % .2 £»'§ .2 8 'S -a ^'S Q ~ ^t On (N 2§ §8^ ?S^ C C C ^-s C ^ W),V5 , ca ,c«<L)§ | m u ^ 1 11 |1 ill i i til I iUlitiSfiifiiiliiij I iSilSlfllelf il^ltf II 269 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 10. c c c *> <_• o *-» o *j o s Sgt 8 'I ~ § § § 1 -£ -a till!Ifll ! Hi' I? 1 - II,o u -g g g -gl2 Oh ea rsJ & & CS E C ea S rsJ K « <D w £ E .5 C h S z oj; « tf <D fw •g ^o ^> I '13 ^o 1 ^> ^ § -I g2" i -i|^ •§$ -i ca <u « w d ,_. .3 « iA 4> 5 ?w I 2 ?5 a rg -S -S G £ £ i I ItC +^ sf|a. « +^ {Li £f|«^k -^3 (Li al|s_r* ^^ (Li 9^..^ ss»C +^ a. « +^ {Li «^k -^3 (Li s_r* ^^ (Li ^..^ s» • Z a. ^ »-h en cn <N - C C C C /-n C- Co OO O^O &0(ca , co , 00 , V5 (D g i(^ 1 11 II I! lit] I! 'g « E^ £ £ H H «srfI .sf 1.^^ a fi.^l &§ 11.&!•§ i 11£f«| i £ $ $ jfisag.giaiSSlsliSiifiaa^iifisili'SS eS I °^ 2 = a 2 270 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 11. 1I I 8 I .2 g •&* s § § ^ c -S 3 -g -g ^ II I 1 ! I •I § I I I I I 2" ^ is i i II H if I g 2S g* g^ ^ ^ >^ ojj ox) °i i"B 'I'b' If II if s 3 Z Cl, (N en On On _ C C C ^ C /-s & _ O O O «« O i« 1 11 §1 lite 1Hi .S •► i § S M 96 '%% 8 11 i S *| u » $ Ik t 2 2 E: 271 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 12. I I Ifll „ I u mill f „ I£S S u E E •S S£ •§ S c a a -g |J I II I 1 If 5 I 5 £" I a -I § =g e si 1 ^s s ^^ r « i « 1 O VO ON VO Z If I S3 3 ll. 2 2 9 « C Oh CU D- ^ ■^ I Is ¥ ^ | 1 11 .S 3 . ^tII iliiiJiijiiiilii 272 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 13. •a f § § § t 1 § 1 1 i?~ I C 1 | ,. | <U •S ^H oo ■8f 1 *i I § •§ '2 Q Q Q Q I'i d d B ftZ Dm en vo en en a I I II•g ■§ •§ ■§ •§ ^ 00 00 00 00 00 ^3 3 cn en Tt *n H oo eN eN cn <n 273 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 14. 1*1* I 1 § a?. ai. § ■% s^ III ii§ I § i II 18 § § I i -s i I 11 I I $ z 8 1 •g in cn o E c •I 1 ill -§| %tt 1 Q (N Z VO CO t« -S* IS83 -5'^ ^ ^3 c a I c 2 °f 7 s "ggp^o xj 43 x: ^S O ^ i> t^ o^ •'3 13 II S Si si t^ 11 It If § g S In § S So^ s ^ s 11 I- I I III T30D 00 60 GO U°S 1 tt e a § 5 . liiiiiililiiSfliiilmHOOCN CN <N <N <Wc« 274 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 15. f S P P P R •S1 S £ B 2 § g pSp§?6•S U^UdUd U^'UHUd ^ - ^ - ^ 2c^ II c^ II c^ II c/5II c^ II <A II > II > II > ^ >00>00>CO >00>00>00 -. GO - i W -h W htthWhW HWHWHW HWHWHW § £ § o ^S S .2 | 8 1 £J 1 I ll 8.^ ■§-l=?s? nil | ■§i § ? ^ |l|iS6«s5*| S 5 |8aJS^U O O S 5 ^ w S C GOH i ^ !! § ,ii| I |l | i lit ii i in . mil m ? I III! : Hill Pi ihs ill! I lifiJ H* S*»8 -a-gS e | g<§!>f .1|S, . fill 1IIII !f!!l!I . Jill Ilil i I til II! ! !^ It^iJ Hill lid f ^ il|A i£liif| SiJfi ill 1 v Hill ;iSlia»l 8Hi8 =?lI stituuiiitiHiifffint 275 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 16. S ^ 9 « a ?? * s § a - sii 5 rn ^ ^ tj- -* o oo oo i, r- ^frcn "^ cn ^ ^ rn H^HH ^ tj- d *° ° ^ K ^ oocj^ cn cn lJco^ .£ H^HH r d . . d TUdUdU- *° ° ^ u£j K UoiU-^l ^ lJco ^d^ > II > > II CO II M II M II ^11 CO H CA II > II > M HWHH WHWHWHW HW HWHWHW HW & «O rj <n 4-» i 1 il HIlHi ! I 1 i Si ii ifI111|is|. Hi If Hill Mil Si2z s SSo £ _. a. c c 8 ° « g ^ l? 45 1 a •£ S 2-8 ^ 3 g» 2 * 1 5 -a 2 II=sl 1 I I -a is I ! . •5 S S on US 8 t? .S ou ll 'c3 =3 -° oo * g "S .S s ^ §* I 11 I SI 1 1 .1 I? £SaS tS _. <^ to 73 0S_;«t3 g 5 g2•§ S § _. 7 .9 .2 ^ » -g J8 .. ° S .-S C § S ? ^ S II $ .£ if" | 1^| |ll 3S3& !i nn stin tit sit#s 2 a h ? uhu Shu .Shh $ M a 5 S 2 276 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 17. I 8 © S * § ^ ^ V V V £ fc r II 05 II CO II M II CA II M II > II > II > II > II > II > II > II >C/5 "^C/5 >C/3 >C/D ^C/D >C/5^hC/5^</)^hC/5^hC/5^hC/3^hC/3^C/5 I I . I s 1 i i- 1 I 1 t I I ! i U!I. . i | 2 £ § s Si ^§.s5£l §:^'^ I § § | 8 8 d I* 8 ^ ^ ^ I I o !§ 1 ^ a •§ ^ 8 & 8 I d w ^w g c^g % o T> g^ 8 a 8 4 £ I £ w ,g!l|Ss? ^w g c^g % i I g ^ S S ill 1 1 IS ilpj | | | l! Ill 1=1 - i.S.5 a>.i 1^ » ill |1 H*i ill M*-*° ii 2 S *a c '~ S, •a ^ « S c3^2-o I!!! Ill 1!&2£- -sS£Si3 -lit 11* II |il? Ill Ii till zU SI i liiij siifilf 277 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 18. . ^ m ^ lOf^l MO ^) 1 1 § . I I ^ (S t h q (N o >09ci^ w •r5 H ^h . cs H cs "SoOo w C-S -fc * ii > N > M i ii £ v * I -S"81 - - * 60 „ ■B g S| I o g S a « 1 I rfl I 11 |1 111 f | I I §I--aI It g" iI & 8 I til a m P P ^ ^ S S « IS1 § «§ |^ % S n 2 % • .S^O'S &^ it ii! ! if r 1^| 1.1 § So. 2 I § g fi-g« „ -o-3 ^ •« --5-S « ■§ g.|.s -g 1^3 „ Il«s -S H « cga«a« 1-5*1 S-s Si 8 5 8-81 ITo'IeU || ffliIH !« i ii iltiJHiliiill*Ji I 1I ^ tf8S"I8 I 5^1^gl I il? « •= «-1 =11 "i.3-S•§ I iS^-iS I 1 « i S h £ £ o S u a 278 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 19. Is8°? 1I ^ ^ X£8S IS ^s -B 5 ^ § | £ ^s fb°8 ° ^ I% a S S 8 S ^ s~ I SS8°g^c^ u?u§u?ud 2 2 $ ^ ^ '> o -* »5 n »5 n «5 n «i ii ii n 3 ^ 52 •-* >" CO **"C/3^ C/3^ C/5 ^ C/5Ol C/5 < COU <fflUwD5Z hldhUHIDhU HWHUJ ^ Ol C/5 § 1 ti i 1 § 1 | 8 8«£&? §811 ^ s1 £ n^i-s %* s^l^f^S -Is oo o c -s ^ <g.s -p .a -p .a & .a a g P. -^toCcjSo S 2 S to 2 S 2 j) ^^a ^u'ggDc k tA K to k m j)a ^^ .•8 1 § S & g -S « 2 ^ §- S 2 11 go £ w §S^S ^w I! fl HI 1 ?! SI J! II Isi I* -S.S & 2 ^§85' .s?t ii u Ifiiii iii si! ^S-i. lai^ji sb il2 III *.|fll?■ s^s> f if« III II*! Ii!■ jII fti|| 1.!!L « ill vfIillfliillS{ .HI! Iff sllliil? IP! 1 1 ih r if u 1 r 279 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 20. H m ^ <ni^ g* ooob § £ £ ~- osvo* t^ r-T T *7Q 2 S - I <S Xn^^^^z E s I g ^ ^ h 2 2 ^ ^ *- E ? S c «» c «>ii "g o ^ -a c 5 - . *c «> en I gto w $ <*> 8. 8. §• -2 I 6 8 61 |2 §2| S § S i 8q= §.g£ pco= pqpQ §°2 ^ ^ U U U O c ^ & o g I c £S & B o g^m w a, .ts ^ s > "Sit -8 s I § * ! £ g « -g§ ■3 -8=§ g 1 |S s •-§2 s .s e as ! Hi!I IIg g>-S II .§ ^ g ^ o jg I if fiiii ii If 1 -i8.a»|f-St s?"9! 1 11 I Il^lHtll ll| i ij i ii^pu^ii isii I I HHI fH HHfcHw 1H 280 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 21. 1W) tttztnlznj es «j ^^ ca v^ w* ^^ IW) nj es «j ^^ ca v^ w* ^^ C CNr^OOw^Hcscaca fc ^ II S II > II > II > II > II « II « II 5 II > II > II > II « I $ i tilt 1 ! 1 ! I JillIfIf 11! II! l!^ I^^^^^^"■■H "sl^ "HI'S ^ '•g g* I? I .§^3 s-S §s -S.-H |t 1 |I| fi-a? . HI i $3 iitfi ill!!!!!Illlilt Hill Jsl-rg-as Iffltlls 4l 8gs |«i 58.11 Illfiitl Jliil flSilll i . ! ifllilil! iliJlIlililill I! . ! ililiilil !lifi|f!il31i! H £ ^ <C DQ U PQ 281 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 22. D Q ^ Q '£ g pop gf 9£ v v v § a a 3 3 ^ -a 0*ncSTt^omfNjobc^^ »o ^ £fc ^°^d^°'^f-:^d^o'^dUo'Uo'Uo'Uo' UdUd£fc > II > II > II > II > II > II > II « II « II c« II «5 II «5 II »S II Ny3^W(NW^W(SW^MMW >73 ''"W >CO >W >C/3>C/3 I * J 1 I ! I 1 III! ii Iff 1 1 ^ 1 >i^i^^® «|i«! ° .s K - g ^ II I 8 2 5,i 2^1- -SBM- §^ « S I p § i8f g If § C G r« <*> S C O3 o «3 g r« S B *s S £^ I £ g> C!mI -o«< c2?^ J2 ♦-> S C!m -o«< c I o ^ "-a s i "-a M 'S D gj ON «, .S g" H If* 5 ff-iSl 1 11-I^I y Sl'tflS $ S-gs ^ 1 5 i i 1 '« 1 s| IS lill ! 282 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 23. ! „ f § ! 1 « | ? „ 8pSI^ I .... ^ 3^ 3- ^ •5 Q .... «O CO §" 00 ^ )Q t^ <N .Su^UdUdUdU-; dvod g* «5 II «5 II «5 II «5 II «5 II II a II II -o >> >C/5>C/}>GO>CO>C/5 CO CO CO 5 O HWHWHWHWHW HW HWhW wh fr § I* ao ^ a I f 1 § 3 1 J S 1 | I I t si i I & * Hill! Hi iii^-L i |i|i|l|ioii |ii|i|i j ^I"§ .1^ "hi 6 fll-iJ§ ?il^ |1H I? fills!; lisi !5*!g If II Z*l I 88|.S S>^tg bl §s"g 1 § I 8 3*6I ^ § «sgs S-8 11.8*-31 Sa i.S ulil || i 1111 & lc|§ igjl •!! „ i«!5*i? aisi? ! fi!^ 2 ill I „ sif.lif sill! I si||t| i taf I SiiSli! sill! I Slilp I ill 5 1 llllall till! i ill! II ! seg gI i- ° r ° I I" i r 283 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 24. »r> © ^ i-m^ Q c<">Q © *o +■***^T to E"^ ^ ,8 g8 o ^ 3 g - onos «->m «, o | B £ &> "~ ,8 | g8 o ||^------|||| 3 g - onos «->m «, o | B £ &> | 1 JLI s Is Is 1' II tH Uhih im I II -On C fi i r 1 isSl I 1* ! fi llSI i* !3 li -Sail * S I f* 112 Mo1 %2 .< I t I L iiI ii| a* ii H fflllf lUIillllf it illI iiiiuili l^ll 111111 Ullllli! S , 35518fill Ji Si »tll 111 a= 6§2o«> * 8 S 8 S I H-ti c<2.o E «Q« h£ 55 on Z>?oll«iu'os 284 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 25. TABLE 3 Typeofinterventionbystudydesign Studydesign Treatment- Interventiontype comparison Single group Single subject Marginaltotals Comprehension 9 1 3 13 Fluency 113 5 Wordstudy 4 0 0 4 Multicomponent 3 13 7 Marginaltotals 17 3 9 29 studyfeatures,includingsamplecharacteristics,design,anddurationoftheinter- ventionas well as fidelityofimplementation. Samplecharacteristics.The 29 studiesincluded976 students.Sample sizes ranged from1 to 125,withan averageof51 participantsfortreatment-comparisonstud- ies. The majorityofstudiestargetedmiddleschool students(n = 19). Five studies focusedon highschoolstudents,2 onbothmiddleandhighschool students,and3 reportedonlystudents'ages. Althoughourcriteriaincludedinterventionsforall strugglingreaders,includingthosewithoutidentifieddisabilities,only8 studies included samples of strugglingreaderswithoutdisabilities.The otherstudies includedstudentswithlearningorreadingdisabilities(n = 17) or a combination ofbothstudentswithandwithoutdisabilities(n = 4). Studydesign.The corpusof studiesincluded17 treatment-comparison,9 single- subject,and3 single-groupdesignstudies.The distributionofinterventiontypeby designis displayedinTable 3. The numberoftreatment-comparisonstudieswith specificdesignelementsthatarecharacteristicofhighqualitystudies(Instituteof EducationSciences,2003; Raudenbush,2005; Shadish,2002) isindicatedinTable4. The threeelementsinTable4 wereselectedbecause theystrengthenthevalidityof studyconclusionswhenappropriatelyemployed.As indicated,only2 studies(Abbott & Berninger,1999; Allinder,Dunse, Brunken,& Obermiller-Krolikowski,2001) randomlyassigned studentsto conditions,reportedimplementationfidelity,and measuredstudentoutcomesusingstandardizedmeasures. Interventiondesignandimplementation.Thenumberofinterventionsessionsranged from2 to70. For 11 studies,thenumberofsessionswas notreportedandcouldnot be determinedfromtheinformationprovided.Similarly,thefrequencyandlengthof sessionswas inconsistentlyreportedbutis providedinTable 1 whenavailable.For studiesthatreportedthelengthand numberof sessions (n = 12), studentswere engagedinanaverageof23 hrofinstruction.Fortreatment-comparisondesignstud- ies,theaveragenumberofinstructionalhoursprovidedwas 26 (n = 10). Narrativetextwas used in mosttext-levelinterventions(n = 12). Two studies used bothnarrativeandexpositorytextduringtheintervention,and7 used expos- itorytextexclusively.For4 studies,thetypeoftextused was notdiscernable,and as wouldbe expected,theword-levelstudiesdidnotincludeconnectedtext.About anequal numberofstudyinterventionswas implementedbyteachers(n =13) and 285 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 26. TABLE 4 Qualityoftreatment-comparisonstudies Element Numberofstudies Randomassignmenttoconditions 10 Fidelityoftreatmentreported 9 Standardizeddependentmeasures 10 Randomassignment,treatmentfidelity,and standardizedmeasures 2 researchers(n = 12). Two interventionswere implementedby bothteachersand researchers,andthepersonimplementingtheinterventioncouldnotbe determined from2 studies. Meta-Analysis To summarizetheeffectofreadinginterventionson students'comprehension, we conducteda meta-analysisof a studysubset(k = 13; Abbott& Berninger, 1999; Alfassi, 1998; Allinderet al., 2001; Anderson,Chan, & Henne, 1995; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; L. S. Fuchs,Fuchs,& Kazdan, 1999; Hasselbring& Goin, 2004; Jitendra,Hoppes, & Xin, 2000; Mastropieriet al., 2001; Moore & Scevak, 1995; Penney, 2002; Wilder & Williams, 2001; Williams, Brown, Silverstein,& deCani, 1994). Studieswiththeoreticallysimilarcontrastsandmea- suresofreadingcomprehensionwereincludedin themeta-analysis.All selected studiescomparedtheeffectsofa readinginterventionwitha comparisoncondition inwhichtheconstructofinterestwas absent.By selectingonlystudieswithcon- trastsbetweena treatmentconditionanda no-treatmentcomparisoncondition,we could ensurethattheresultingpointestimateoftheeffectcould be meaningfully interpreted. The majorityofqualifyingstudiesreportedmultiplecomprehensiondependent variables.Thus,we firstcalculateda compositeeffectforeach studyusingmeth- ods outlinedbyRosenthalandRubin(1986) suchthateach studycontributedonly one effecttotheaggregate.In thesecalculations,effectsfromstandardizedmea- surewere weightedmoreheavily(w = 2) thaneffectsfromresearch-developed measures.We analyzeda random-effectsmodelwithone predictorvariable(inter- ventiontype)toaccountforthepresenceofunexplainedvarianceandtoprovidea moreconservativeestimateofeffectsignificance.A weightedaverageofeffects was estimatedand theamountofvariancebetweenstudyeffectscalculatedusing theQ statistic(Shadish& Haddock, 1994). In additiontoan overallpointestimate of theeffectof readinginterventions,we also calculated weightedaverages to highlighteffectsofcertaininterventioncharacteristics(e.g.,usingnarrativeversus expositorytext).Whenreportingweightedmeaneffects,onlyoutcomesfromstud- ies withtreatment-comparisonconditionswere included. Effectsfromsingle- groupstudieswereexcludedbecause onlyone study(Mercer,Campbell,Miller, Mercer& Lane, 2000) providedtheinformationneededto converttherepeated- measureseffectsize intothesame metricas an independentgroupeffectsize. Overall effecton comprehension.The 13 treatment-comparisonstudies were includedinthemeta-analysisbecause they(a) had theoreticallysimilarcontrasts andmeasuresofreadingcomprehensionand(b) examinedtheeffectsofa reading 286 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 27. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis interventionwitha comparisoninwhichtheconstructofinterestwasabsent.In8 studies,thecontrastwasbetweentheinterventionofinterestandtheschool'scur- rentreadinginstruction.In5 studies,thecomparisonconditionalsoreceivedan intervention,buttheconstructorstrategyofinterestwasabsentfromthatcondi- tion.Theremaining4 treatment-comparisonstudiesinthesynthesiswereelimi- natedfromthemeta-analysisbecausetheydid notincludea comprehension measure(Bhat,Griffin,& Sindelair,2003;Bhattacharya& Ehri,2004)ortheydid notincludea no-treatmentcomparisoncondition(Chan,1996;Klingner& Vaughn, 1996). A random-effectsmodelwasusedtoprovidea moreconservativeestimateof interventioneffectsignificance.Inthismodel,theweightedaverageofthediffer- enceincomprehensionoutcomesbetweenstudentsinthetreatmentconditionsand studentsinthecomparisonconditionswaslarge(effectsize = 0.89; 95% confi- denceinterval(CI) = 0.42, 1.36).Thatis,studentsinthetreatmentconditions scored,onaverage,morethantwothirdsofa standarddeviationhigherthanstu- dentsinthecomparisonconditionsonmeasuresofcomprehension,andtheeffect wassignificantlydifferentfromzero. To examinewhetherresearcher-developedor curriculum-basedmeasures inflatedtheeffectofreadinginterventions,wealsocalculatedtheeffectbasedon standardizedmeasuresonly.Forthisanalysis,sevenstudieswereincluded;the othersixstudieswereeliminatedfromthissecondaryanalysisbecausetheydidnot includea standardizedmeasureofcomprehension.Whenlimitedtoonlystudies thatincludeda standardizedmeasureofcomprehension,therandom-effectsmodel yieldeda moderateaverageeffect(effectsize= 0.47;95% CI = 0.12,0.82).The effectofreadinginterventionsoncomprehensionwasquitelarge(effectsize= 1.19;95% CI = 1.10,1.37)whenresearcher-developedmeasureswereusedto estimatetheeffect(k= 9). Ina fixed-effectsmodel,interventiontypewasa significantpredictorofeffect sizevariation(^between= 22.33,p < .05),whichsuggeststhattheeffectsizeswere notsimilaracrossthecategories.Weightedaverageeffectsforeachintervention type(comprehension,fluency,wordstudy,andmulticomponent)werecalculated andarepresentedinTable5. Forfluencyandwordstudyinterventions,theeffect wasnotsignificant- theaverageeffectoncomprehensionwasnotdifferentfrom zero.Fortheotherinterventiontypes,theeffectwassignificantlydifferentfrom zerobutdifferedinmagnitude.Bonferroniposthoccontrastsshoweda significant differenceineffectsoncomprehensionbetweencomprehensionandmulticompo- nentinterventions(p < .025).Therewas no significantdifferencebetweenthe effectsofwordstudyinterventionsandmulticomponentinterventions(p > .025). Wealsocomputedweightedaverageeffectsforstudieswithcommoncharac- teristics.Whetheraninterventionwasimplementedbytheresearcher(n= 4,aver- ageeffectsize= 1.15)orthestudents'teacher(n= 8,effectsize= 0.77),theeffects werelarge.The95% CIs forthesetwoconditionsdidnotoverlap,suggestingthat theyaresignificantlydifferent.Effectsoncomprehensionweredifferentdepend- ingonthestudentpopulation.Moderateaverageeffectswerefoundforsamplesof strugglingreaders(n= 5,effectsize= 0.45)orbothstrugglingreadersandstudents withdisabilities(n= 4,effectsize= 0.68),buta largeeffect(n= 4,effectsize= 1.50)wasfoundforstudieswithsamplesofonlystudentswithdisabilities. 287 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 28. TABLE 5 Averageweightedeffectsbymeasurementandinterventiontype Effectsize(95% confidenceinterval) Measurementtype Allmeasures(n= 13) 0.89(0.42,1.36) Standardizedmeasures(n= 7) 0.47(0.12,0.82) Researcherdevelopedmeasures(n= 9) 1.19(1.10,1.37) InterventionType Fluency(n= 1) -0.03 (-0.56,0.62) Wordstudy(n= 2) 0.34(-0.22,0.88) Multicomponent(n= 3) 0.72(0.45,0.99) Comprehension(n= 7) 1.23(0.96,1.5) Eleven of the 13 studiesincludedin themeta-analysisused readingof con- nectedtextas partoftheintervention.In an analysisof studiesthatreportedthe typeof textused, theweightedaverageeffectforinterventionsusingexpository textwas moderate(n = 3, effectsize = 0.53), whereastheaverageeffectforthose focusingon narrativetextwas high(n = 6, effectsize = 1.30). Closerexamination ofthestudieswithinterventionsfocusedonexpositorytext(Alfassi,1998;DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Moore & Scevak, 1995) showed thattwo studiestestedthe effectsofa multicomponentinterventionsimilarinstructuretoreciprocalteaching andone examinedtheeffectsofusinggraphicorganizers. InterventionVariables For thissynthesis,we examinedfindingsfromtreatment-comparisondesign studiesfirst,because thefindingsfromthesestudiesprovidethegreatestconfi- denceaboutcausal inferences.We thenusedresultsfromsingle-groupandsingle- subjectdesignstudiestosupportorrefutefindingsfromthetreatment-comparison design studies.Findingsare summarizedby interventiontype.Interventiontype was definedas theprimaryreadingcomponentaddressedbytheintervention(i.e., wordstudy,fluency,vocabulary,comprehension).The corpusof studiesdid not includeanyvocabularyinterventionsbutdidincludeseveralstudiesthataddressed multiplecomponentsin which vocabularyinstructionwas represented.Within each summary,findingsfordifferentreadingoutcomes(e.g., fluency,wordread- ing,comprehension)arereportedseparatelytohighlighttheinterventions'effects on componentreadingskills. Comprehension.Nine treatment-comparisonstudies(Alfassi, 1998; Anderson etal., 1995; Chan, 1996; DiCecco & Gleason,2002; Jitendraetal.,2000; Klingner & Vaughn,1996; Moore & Scevak, 1995; Wilder& Williams,2001; Williams et al., 1994) focusedon comprehension.Among thesestudies,several(Alfassi, 1998; Andersonet al., 1995; Klingner& Vaughn,1996; Moore & Scevak, 1995) examinedinterventionsin whichstudentsweretaughta combinationofreading comprehensionskillsandstrategies,an approachwithevidenceofeffectivenessin improvingstudents'generalcomprehension(NRP, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group,2002). Two studies(Alfassi, 1998; Klingner& Vaughn,1996) employed reciprocalteaching(Palincsar,Brown,& Martin,1987), a model thatincludes 288 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 29. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis previewing,clarifying,generatingquestions,andsummarizingandhasbeenshown tobe highlyeffectiveinimprovingcomprehension(see forreview,Rosenshine& Meister,1994). Klingnerand Vaughn (1996) reportedmixed resultswhen the groupingstructureof a reciprocalteachinginterventionwas manipulatedduring studentapplicationand practice.On a standardizedmeasureof comprehension, cooperativegroupingwas the more effectivemodel (effectsize = 1.42). On a researcher-developedcomprehensionmeasure,theeffectsweresmallbutfavored thepeertutoringgroup(effectsize = 0.35). It is likelythatthestandardizedtest outcomeis morereliable,suggestinggreatereffectsfromtheuse ofcooperative groupingstructures,atleastforEnglishlanguagelearnerswithreadingdifficulties. In anotherstudy,effectsofreciprocalteachingon comprehensionweremoderate tohigh(effectsize = 0.35 to 1.04;Alfassi,1998) whenimplementedina remedial highschoolsetting,a contextnottypicallyexaminedinpreviousstudiesofrecipro- cal teaching(Alfassi,1998). The multiple-strategyinterventioninAndersonet al. (1995) resultedin large effects(effectsize = 0.80 to2.08). Therepertoireofstrategiesincludedpreviewing andusingknowledgeoftextstructuretofacilitateunderstanding.However,another study(Moore & Scevak, 1995), whichfocusedon teachingstudentsto use text structureand featuresto summarizeexpositorytext,reportedno effects(effect size = -0.57 to 0.07). It should be notedthatthe interventionprovidedin the Andersonandcolleagues study(1995) was conductedfor140hr(a veryextensive intervention),andtheamountoftimefortheinterventionintheMoore andScevak study(1995) was notspecified,butthestudywas conductedforonly7 weeks- suggestinga significantlyless extensiveintervention. Chan (1996) manipulatedbothstrategyinstructionand attributiontrainingand foundthatpoor readersbenefitedfromsome attributiontraining,withthemost effectivemodelbeingattributiontrainingplus successivestrategytraining(effect size = 1.68). In addition,all threestrategyconditionsweremoreeffectivethanthe attribution-onlycondition,which suggeststhatpoor readersalso benefitfrom explicitstrategyinstruction. Using graphicorganizersis anotherstrategywithdemonstratedefficacyin improvingcomprehension(Kim et al., 2004). One experimentalstudy(DiCecco & Gleason, 2002) and two single-subject studies (Gardhill & Jitendra,1999; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt,1997) examinedtheimpactof teachingstudentsto use graphicorganizers.In DiCecco and Gleason (2002), theeffectof a concept relationshipgraphicorganizerinterventiononrelationalstatementproductionwas large(effectsize = 1.68). However,theeffectwas mixedformeasuresofcontent knowledge(effectsize = 0.08 to 0.50). Otherstudiesalso indicatedthatgraphic organizersassistedstudentsinidentifyinginformationrelatedtotheorganizerbut wereless effectiveinimprovingstudents'overallunderstandingoftext.Forexam- ple,ina single-subjectstudyofa storymappingintervention,GardhillandJitendra (1999) foundmixedresultson generalcomprehensionquestions(PND = 13% to 100%) butconsistentimprovementcomparedto baseline on storyretell(PND = 100%). Similarly,all threestudentsina studyofexplicitstorymapping(Vallecorsa & deBettencourt,1997) increasedthenumberofstoryelementsincludedina retell (PND = 67% to 100%). Otherstudies focused on a single comprehensionstrategy(Jitendraet al., 2000; Wilder& Williams,2001; Williamsetal., 1994). Studiesofsingle-strategy 289 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 30. Edmondsetal. interventionsshowedlargeeffectsonmeasuresalignedcloselywiththeinterven- tionbutlimitedexamplesoftransfertomoregeneralcomprehensionmeasures.For example,studentswhoweretaughttoidentifymainideaswithintextoutperformed studentsinthecomparisonconditionona taskofidentifyingandproducingmain ideastatements(effectsize= 2.23;Jitendraetal.,2000).Althoughthetreatment effectsweremaintainedonnearandfartransfermeasures(effectsize= 1.84to 2.57),scoresdecreasedsignificantlyforbothconditionsontransferpassages,indi- catinga lackoftransfertonovelcontexts.Similarly,interventionsinwhichstu- dentsweretaughttoidentifyandapplystorythemes(Wilder& Williams,2001; Williamsetal.,1994)resultedinlargeeffectsonmeasuresofthemeidentification andapplication(effectsize= 1.41to5.93).Effectsofthisinterventionongeneral comprehensiontasksweresomewhatattenuated,althoughstilldemonstrating moderateeffects(effectsize= 0.41to0.59;Wilder& Williams,2001). Threestudiesincludedinformationaboutstudents'decodingabilities(Alfassi, 1998;DiCecco & Gleason,2002;Jitendraetal.,2000).Inall threestudies,stu- dentswereadequatedecodersbutpoorcomprehenders.Theaverageeffectofthe comprehensioninterventionswaslarge(effectsize= 1.04). Multicomponent.Studies(L. S. Fuchsetal., 1999;Hasselbring& Goin;2004; Mastropierietal.,2001) wereclassifiedasmulticomponentwhentheinterventions includedinstructioninmorethanonecomponentofreading,suchas wordstudy withfluencyorfluencywithcomprehension.Twomulticomponentstudies(L. S. Fuchsetal.,1999;Mastropierietal.,2001)featureda slightlymodifiedversionof a peer-assistedlearningcomprehensionandfluencyintervention,aninstructional modelwithdemonstratedefficacyintheearlyelementarygrades(D. Fuchs,Fuchs, Mathes,& Simmons,1997).Resultswhenusingthisinterventionmodelwitholder strugglingreadersweremixed.Whenimplementedinan inclusivesettingon a biweeklybasis,effectsoncomprehensionskillsweresmall(effectsize= 0.31; L. S. Fuchsetal., 1999)yetwerequitelargewhenimplementeddailyina self- containedresourceroom(effectsize=1.18; Mastropierietal.,2001).Itshouldbe notedthatthelargeeffectsizewascomputedfromdataona researcher-developed measure,whereasthesmallereffectwasbasedondatafroma standardizedmea- sure,whichisa morereliablemeasureoftheintervention'seffect. Ina single-groupdesignstudy(Bryantetal.,2000),studentsparticipatedinan enhancedcollaborativestrategicreadinginterventionduringwhichtheyapplied wordlearning,wordreading,andcomprehensionstrategiesandpracticedfluent reading.Thiswas theonlystudythatexaminedtheeffectsofan instructional modelwithallfourcomponentsincluded.Effectsonwordidentificationandoral readingfluencyweremoderate(effectsize= 0.64,effectsize= 0.67,respectively), buteffectsoncomprehensionweresmall(effectsize= 0.22). HasselbringandGoin(2004)implementeda computer-basedinterventionthat providedstudentswithwordreadingandspellingpracticeandcomprehension supportduringtextreading.Effectson comprehension(effectsize= 1.0) and vocabulary(effectsize= 0.75) werelarge.Effectsonword-levelskills,however, weresmall(effectsize= 0.23to0.44).Resultsfroma single-subjectdesignstudy withwordstudyas oneinstructionalcomponent(Strong,Wehby,Falk,& Lane, 2004),indicatedmoreconsistentimprovementinstudents'oralreadingfluency whenwordstudywas combinedwithfluencypracticethanwhenwordstudy 290 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 31. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis instructionalonewasprovided.However,SteventonandFrederick(2003)hadless successwithonestudentwhoparticipatedina similarwordstudyandfluency intervention.Theirresultsshowedlessimprovementcomparedtobaselinefororal readingfluencyandvirtuallynotransferoffluentreadingtonoveltext. Therewereonlytwostudiesthatfeaturedtechnologyprominentlyintheinstruc- tion.OnewasthepreviouslydiscussedmulticomponentinterventionbyHasselbring andGoin(2004).Theotherwasa studythatusedcomputerstoenhancetextand supportreading(MacArthur& Haynes,1995),whichyieldedan effectsize in favorofbasictextsupport(wordrecognitionanddecodingwithvocabularysup- port)whencomparedwithenhancedtextsupport(additionalsupportthatincludes questionwindows,glossary,teachercomments,andspeechsynthesis)forcompre- hendingexpositorytext. Fluency.Thesynthesisincludedonetreatment-comparisondesignstudyofflu- ency(Allinderetal.,2001).Allinderetal.(2001)studiedtheeffectsofprompting studentstouse strategiesforfluentreading(e.g.,readingwithinflection)and foundno effectson standardizedword-levelorcomprehensionmeasures.The otherstudiesoffluencyfocusedonimprovingoralreadingfluency,oftenthrough wordorphrasereadingfluencyand/orrepeatedreading.Resultsweremixedwith inconsistentimprovementsinoralreadingfluencycomparedtobaseline(Freeland, Skinner,Jackson,McDaniel& Smith,2000; Merceret al., 2000; Valleley& Shriver,2003). Wordstudy.Threeoffourexperimentalword-levelstudiesexaminedtheeffectsof advancedwordreadingstrategies(Abbott& Berninger,1999;Bhattacharya& Ehri,2004;Penney,2002).Thefourth(Bhatetal.,2003)studiedtheeffectsofa phonemicawarenessintervention.Resultsofthephonemicawarenessintervention werepositive,withlargeeffectson phonemicprocessing(effectsize = 1.59). However,theoveralleffectofimprovedphonemicprocessingtransferredmini- mallytoimprovedwordidentification(effectsize= 0.15). Resultsforthethreestructuralanalysisstudiesweremixed,witheffectsranging from-0.31to1.40.BhattacharyaandEhri(2004)foundthatalthoughhavingstu- dentspracticewhole-wordreadingversusprovidingnowordreadinginstruction atallhada smalleffect(effectsize = 0.43),teachingstudentsa structuralanalysis approach(i.e.,multisyllabicchunking)hada largeeffect(effectsize= 1.40).In anotherstudythatcompareda structuralanalysisapproachto typicalreading instruction,theeffectsonwordreadingweremoderate(effectsize= 0.43to0.48; Penney,2002).Inthethirdstudy(Abbott& Berninger,1999),theeffectofphonics andstructuralanalysisinstructiononwordreadingskillswasminimal(effectsize = -.31 to.04).However,inthelatterstudy,thecomparisonandtreatmentcondi- tionsreceivedidenticalinterventions,withtheexceptionofthedecodingstrategy taught:Thecomparisonconditionwastaughta syntheticphonicsstrategyandthe treatmentconditiona combinationofphonicsandstructurallyanalysis.Results mayhavebeenlowerinthisstudybecause,withbothconditionsbeingprovideda fairlyrobusttreatment,thecontrastedconditionswerenotas dissimilaras inthe othertwostudies. Acrossstudies,theweightedaverageeffectofstructuralanalysisinstructionon wordreadingskillswasmoderate(effectsize= .36,95%CI = .03,.69).Twostud- ies (Abbott& Berninger,1999;Penney,2002) measuredcomprehensionas an 291 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 32. Edmondsetal. outcomeofa word-levelintervention.Again,theresultsweremixed(effectsize = -0.12to0.65). Discussion Resultsfromthemeta-analysisindicatethatstudentswithreadingdifficulties anddisabilitiescanimprovetheircomprehensionwhenprovidedwitha targeted readinginterventionincomprehension,multiplereadingcomponents,or,to a lesserextent,wordreadingstrategies.Evenwhenusingstandardizedmeasures, whichoffera moregeneralizedmeasureofcomprehension,theeffectismoderate, providingstudentswithanaverageofa halfstandarddeviationadvantagecom- paredtotheirpeerswithoutthetreatment. A primaryfindingfromthissynthesisisthatstrugglingreaderscanimprovein theirreadingcomprehensionwhentaughtreadingcomprehensionpractices. Seeminglyobvious,thisphenomenonisquitesignificantbecausemanystruggling readersinoldergrades(6 through12) arenotprovidedeffectiveinstructionin readingcomprehension.Infact,interventionsthatspecificallytargetedstudents withlearningdisabilitieswereassociatedwiththehighestgainsinreadingcom- prehension.Resultsfromthissynthesissuggestthatexplicitinstructionincompre- hensionbenefitedstudentswithreadingdifficultiesanddisabilities.Findingsalso suggestthattheremaybea diminishingrelationshipbetweenaccuracy(e.g.,word recognitionandfluentreading)andcomprehensionwithsecondarystudents.When studentsreachtheupperelementarygrades,otherfactors,suchas background knowledge,wordknowledge,anduseofstrategies,contributetocomprehension (Kintsch& Kintsch,2004).Thelargeeffectsofinterventionsthatdevelopedstu- dents'strategyknowledgeanduseandtherelativelylowereffectsofothertypesof interventionsoncomprehensionsupportthesepreviousfindings.Thus,forstu- dentswholackwordreadingskills,itisnecessarytobuildtheseword-levelskills whileteachingcomprehensionsothataccesstoincreasinglydifficultlevelsofprint isavailabletothem. Asindicatedbythemeta-analysis,word-levelinterventionsareassociatedwith smalltomoderateeffectsoncomprehension(d = .34).Thissupportssomestudies inearlygradelevels(e.g.,Baumannetal.,2002)thatfoundlittleeffectoncompre- hensionfromstructuralanalysisinterventions.Althoughtheaverageeffectwasnot significantlydifferentfromzero,thesmalltomoderateeffectisanimportantfind- ing,particularlyforolderstudentswithverylowdecodingskillswhorequire extensiveinstructioninword-levelskills.Itisvaluabletoknowthatthereisa small tomoderateeffectforcomprehensionfromword-levelinterventions. Thedatatrendfromthestudiesoffluencyindicatesthatincreasedreadingrate andaccuracydidnotalwaysresultin improvedcomprehension(e.g.,Allinder etal., 2001). Theseresultssupportotherresearchon therelationshipbetween comprehensionandfluencyforolderstudents.Forexample,KuhnandStahl(2003) foundthatalthoughfluencyinstructionimprovedtheprocessingskillsthatfacili- tatecomprehension,fewfluencyinterventionsfosteredbettergeneralcomprehen- sion.Statedmoresuccinctly,as studentsimprovedtheiroralreadingfluency, comprehensiondidnotjointlyimprove.Othersalso reportthatthecorrelation betweenoralreadingfluencyandcomprehensionappearstobe a developmental relationship,decreasingsteadilywithageandwithtextdifficulty(Francis,Fletcher, Catts,& Tomblin,2004;Paris,Carpenter,Paris,& Hamilton,2004).Foreducators, 292 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 33. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis themessage fromthesefindingsis that"an intensefocuson fluencymaypay a short-termdividend,[however]thecost-benefitanalysisof such an emphasisfor adolescentlearnerslooksless attractive"(Underwood& Pearson,2004,p. 139). Althoughwe do notthinktheevidencefromthissynthesiswouldsuggestforgo- inginstructionin readingskillssuch as fluencyor advanced decodingstrategies withsecondarystrugglingreaders- particularlyforstudentswhose wordreading skillsareexceedinglylow- thefindingsfromthissynthesisdo encourageeduca- torsto includeinstructiontargetingcomprehensionskills.Resultsfromthissyn- thesissuggestthatolder strugglingreadersbenefitfromexplicitcomprehension strategyinstruction- thatis,modelingandthinkingaloudhowtoself-questionand reflectduringandafterreadingandengagingstudentstobecomeactivelyinvolved inmonitoringtheirunderstandingandprocessingtextmeaning.This formofcol- laborationamong studentsas theyread and constructmeaninghas been well definedbyBeck and colleagues in theirworkon "questioningtheauthor"(Beck & McKeown, 2006; Beck, McKeown,Worthy,Sandora,& Kucan, 1997). The moderateand largeeffectson trainingand near-transfermeasuresdid not frequentlygeneralize to measuresof broader,more generalcomprehension.It appearsthatcomprehensionand multicomponentinterventionscan resultin stu- dents'becomingmoreproficientinapplyinglearnedstrategiesandlearningtaught content,buttheyoftendo notresultinreaderswhouse thestrategiesindependently andflexiblyinnovelcontexts.Forexample,Alfassi(1998) foundthatthesignifi- canteffectforconditiononresearcher-developedmeasures(effectsize = 1.04) did notgeneralizeto standardizedmeasuresofbroadcomprehensionand vocabulary skills (0.35 and 0.16, respectively).For single-strategyinterventions,students weresuccessfulon measuresrelatedtothetargetedstrategy(e.g., identifyingthe mainidea afterexplicitmainidea instruction;Jitendraetal., 2000), butonbroader measuresof comprehension,effectswere generallylower and less consistent. These resultssuggestthatolderstrugglingreadersmayneedadditionalopportuni- ties to apply newlylearnedstrategiesto novel textor may need to learnother practicesrelatedtotextreflection,self-questioning,andengagement. On thebasis ofthemixedresultsfromstudiesthatexaminedtheeffectsofearly readinginstructionalpractices(e.g., reciprocalteachingand graphicorganizers), we concludethateducatorscannotassume thatinstructionalpracticeswithdem- onstratedefficacyin thelower grades will be equally as effectivewhen imple- mentedwitholderstrugglingreaders.Thereare severalpossible explanationsfor this.First,thelearningneedsofthispopulationmaydifferfromthoseofyounger students.Some ofthesestudentsmayhavehadextensiveinterventionsaddressing word-levelskillsand fewinterventionsaddressingpracticesforcomprehending text.Thismayexplainwhycomprehensioninterventionsforstudentswithlearning disabilitieswereassociatedwithexceedinglyhigheffectsizes. Itmaybe thatstu- dentswithdisabilitieshavehad relativelylimitedinstructioninthisarea. Second, olderreadersare requiredto read moreinformationor expositorytext.Although thenumberofexpositorytextstudieswas fewin thissynthesis,overallnarrative textwas associatedwithhighereffectsizes fromcomprehensioninterventionsthan expositorytext.Thus,comprehensionpracticesdevelopedtoaddressnarrativetext comprehensionmaybenefitnarrativetextcomprehensionandhavea lowerimpact onreadingexpositorytext- atleastforolderstrugglingreaders.Itmayalso be that olderstrugglingreadersdisplayreadingdifficultiesthataremorerecalcitrantand 293 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 34. Edmondsetal. requiremoreintensiveinterventions(e.g., longerduration,moretargeted)to achievesimilarresults. Limitations As withanysynthesis,ourfindingsaretemperedbya fewlimitations.First, issuesofmeasurementintheareaofcomprehensionareextensive(Snow,2003). Comprehensionisa difficultconstructtoassess,andmanyofthestudiesmeasured comprehensioninvariedways.Comprehensionwasmeasuredbytasksthatranged frommemorizationactivities(e.g.,recall)to indicationsofcomplexcognitive behaviors(drawinginferences).Sometheoristswouldarguethatpoolingorcom- paringoutcomesfrommeasuresassessinga spectrumofskillsmaybemisleading. Giventhelimitednumberofmeasuresandthelimitednumberofstudieswithin eachgivencategoryofskillcomplexity,however,we believedthatgainingan understandingoftheoveralleffectoncomprehensionprovidesa summaryofwhat weknowandinsightintofutureresearchneeded. Second,theuseofresearcher-developedmeasures(ornonstandardizedmea- sures)wasassociatedwithhighereffectsizesthanstandardizedmeasures.Thisis a consistentfindingfrominterventionresearchin education(e.g., Swanson, Hoskyn,& Lee,1999)andshouldbeconsideredwheninterpretingtheresultsfrom interventionstudies. Finally,synthesesareonlyas goodas thequalityoftheresearcharticlesavail- able.Wethinkthatthissynthesisyieldsvaluablefindings;however,onlyadditional researchandbetter-qualityresearchwilldeterminewhetherthesefindingswillbe supportedovertime. ImplicationsandFutureResearch Thissynthesisyieldsseveralimplicationsforeducators.First,we thinkthat thesestudiesindicatethatcomprehensionpracticesthatengagestudentsinthink- ingabouttext,learningfromtext,anddiscussingwhattheyknowarelikelytobe associatedwithimprovedcomprehensionoutcomesforstudentswithreadingdif- ficultiesanddisabilities.Second,thecomprehensionpracticesusedaremore effectivefornarrativetextthanexpositorytext.Wethinkthatteachersmaywantto considertheuseofadditionalelements,suchas graphicorganizersandcalling students'attentiontotextstructureswhenstudentsarereadingrelevantexpository orinformationtexts.Third,comprehensionoutcomeswerehigherwheninterven- tionswereimplementedbyresearchersincontrasttowhenimplementedbyteach- ers.Because it is likelythatresearchersare moreattentiveto implementing interventionswithhighlevelsoffidelity,teachersmaywanttoconsidertheirfidel- ityofimplementationwhentargetingcomprehensionpractices. Thereareseveralimportantareasrelatedtoreadingcomprehensionthatthis synthesiswasunabletoaddressandwouldbeimportanttoconsiderinfuturesyn- theses.Asstatedintheintroduction,RANDReadingStudyGroup(2002)identified severalcriticalelementsthatcontributedtocomprehension:thereader,thetext,and theactivity.Thissynthesisexaminedtheextenttowhichstudentsidentifiedby previousresearchersas havingreadingdifficultiesordisabilitiescoulddemon- strateimprovedcomprehensionwhenparticipatingin specifiedinterventions designedtoimprovetheirreading.Therearemanyotherkeyareasrelatedtoread- ingcomprehension,includingtherelationshipbetweenthesocioculturalcontext 294 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 35. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis andthestudent,teacher,andsetting.Wethinkthatthesevariablesaswellas social andaffectivevariablesrelatedtostudents'interestandmotivationwouldmakefor valuableunderstandingoftheroleofcontextonstudents'comprehension.This synthesisalsodidnotexaminetherelationshipbetweenwritinginterventionson readingcomprehensionoutcomesforolderstrugglingreaders.Anextensionofthis synthesismayprovideadditionalinsightintoeffectsofwritinginterventionson comprehensionforstrugglingreadersinmiddleandhighschool. Wealsothinkthatthissynthesisprovidesamplesupportforadditionalresearch intheareaofreadingcomprehension.Recently,a reportonadolescentliteracy indicatedthatasmanyas70%ofsecondarystudentsrequiresomeformofreading remediation(Biancarosa& Snow,2004).Thetypeofreadinginstructionrequired forthislargenumberofsecondarystudentsis notwelldefined;however,wecan becertainthatmanyofthesestudentswillrequireeffectiveinstructiontargetedat improvingtheirreadingcomprehension.Futureresearchaddressingtheneedsof thisvariedgroupofstrugglingadolescentreadersis needed,includingimproved measurementinreadingcomprehension;effectiveinterventionsforvarioustext types,includinginformationtext;studiesthatimproveourconfidenceofeffective- nessbyadheringtoexperimentaldesignprinciples;andstudiesthataligntheinter- ventionwiththespecificneedsofstudents(e.g.,decoding,vocabulary,and/or comprehension).Wealsoacknowledgethatessentialaspectsofreadingcompre- hensionwitholderstudentsincludeconsiderationofengagementandinvolvement withtext,motivation,self-efficacy,andhowtonurtureandexpandreadinginter- ests.Manyofthesevariablesareconsideredtobe primarysourcesofvariance whenattemptingtopositivelyinfluencethereadingcomprehensionofolderstu- dentswithreadingdifficulties(Guthrie,Wigfield,& VonSecker,2000).A better understandingofthesekeyvariableswillassistteachersandeducationaldecision makersinimprovingreadinginstructionforolderstudents. References Abbott,S. P.,& Berninger,V.W.(1999). It'snevertoolatetoremediate:Teachingword recognitiontostudentswithreadingdisabilitiesinGrades4-7. AnnalsofDyslexia, 49,223-250. Alfassi,M. (1998). Readingformeaning:Theefficacyofreciprocalteachinginfoster- ingreadingcomprehensionin highschool studentsin remedialreadingclasses. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,35, 309-332. Allinder,R. M, Dunse,L., Brunken,C. D., & Obermiller-Krolikowski,H. J.(2001). Improvingfluencyinat-riskreadersandstudentswithlearningdisabilities.Remedial andSpecialEducation,22,48-45. Alvermann,D. E. (2002). Effectiveliteracyinstructionforadolescents.Journalof LiteracyResearch,34, 189-208. Anderson,V.,Chan,K. K., & Henne,R. (1995). Theeffectsofstrategyinstructionon theliteracymodelsandperformanceofreadingandwritingdelayedmiddleschool students.InK. A. Hinchman,D. J.Leu, & C. K. Kinzer(Eds.), Perspectiveson lit- eracy researchand practice: Forty-fourthyearbookof the National Reading Conference(pp. 180-189).Chicago:NationalReadingConference. Baumann,J.K, bdwards,b. c, ront,u., leresmnsKi,c a., is^ameenui,c. j., <k Olejnik,J. (2002). Teachingmorphemicand contextualanalysisto fifth-grade students.ReadingResearchQuarterly,37(2), 150-176. 295 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 36. Edmondsetal. Beck,I. L., & McKeown,M. G. (2006). Improvingcomprehensionwithquestioning theauthor.NewYork:Scholastic. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Worthy,J.,Sandora,C. A., & Kucan, L. (1996). Questioningtheauthor:A year-longclassroomimplementationtoengagestudents withtext.ElementarySchoolJournal,96,385-414. Bhat,P.,Griffin,C. C, & Sindelair,P.T. (2003). Phonologicalawarenessinstruction formiddleschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly, 26,73-87. Bhattacharya,A.,& Ehri,L. C. (2004). Graphosyllabicanalysishelpsadolescentstrug- glingreadersreadandspellwords.JournalofLearningDisabilities,37,331-348. Biancarosa,G.,& Snow,C. E. (2004). Readingnext:A visionforactionand research inmiddleand highschoolliteracy.A reporttotheCarnegieCorporationofNew York.Washington,DC: AllianceforExcellentEducation. Bryant,D. P.,Vaughn,S., Linan-Thomason,S., Ugel,N., Hamff,A., & Hougen,M. (2000). Readingoutcomesforstudentswithandwithoutreadingdisabilitiesingen- eraleducationmiddle-schoolcontentareaclasses.LearningDisabilitiesQuarterly, 23,238-252. Carlisle,J.F. & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improvingreadingcomprehension:Research- basedprinciplesandpractices.Baltimore:York. Chan,L. K. S. (1996). Combinedstrategyandattributionaltrainingforseventh-grade averageandpoorreaders.JournalofResearchinReading,19, 111-127. Cohen,J.(1988). Statisticalpoweranalysisfor thebehavioralsciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Cooper,H. (1998). Synthesizingresearch:A guidefor literaturereviews(3rded.). ThousandOaks,CA: Sage. Curtis,M. E., & Longo,A. M. (1999). Whenadolescentscan't read: Methodsand materialsthatwork.Cambridge,MA: Brookline. Daly,E. J.,& Martens,B. K. (1994).A comparisonofthreeinterventionsforincreasing oral readingperformance:Applicationof theinstructionalhierarchy.Journalof AppliedBehavioralAnalysis,27,459-469. DiCecco,V.M.,& Gleason,M. M. (2002). Usinggraphicorganizerstoattainrelational knowledgefromexpositorytexts.JournalofLearningDisabilities,35, 306-320. Dole,J.A.,Duffy,G. G.,Roehler,L. R.,& Pearson,P.D. (1991). Movingfromtheold tothenew:Researchonreadingcomprehensioninstruction.ReviewofEducational Research,67(2), 239-264. Francis,D. J.,Fletcher,J.M, Catts,H.W.,& Tomblin,J.B. (2004). Dimensionsaffect- ingtheassessmentofreadingcomprehension.In S. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl(Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionand assessment(pp. 369-394). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Freeland,J.T., Skinner,C. H., Jackson,B., McDaniel, C. E., & Smith,S. (2000). Measuringandincreasingsilentreadingcomprehensionrates:Empiricallyvalidat- inga repeatedreadingsintervention.PsychologyintheSchools,37,415-429. Fuchs,D., Fuchs,L. S., Mathes,P.,& Simmons,D. (1997). Peer-assistedlearning strategies:Makingclassroommoreresponsivetodiversity.AmericanEducational ResearchJournal,34(), 174-206. Fuchs,L. S., Fuchs,D., & Kazdan,S. (1999). Effectsofpeer-assistedlearningstrate- gieson highschoolstudentswithseriousreadingproblems.Remedialand Special Education,20, 309-319. Gardhill,M. C, & Jitendra,A. K. (1999). Advancedstorymapinstruction:Effectson thereadingcomprehensionofstudentswithlearningdisabilities.JournalofSpecial Education,33,2-17, 28. 296 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 37. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis Gersten,R.,Fuchs,L. S., Williams,J.P.,& Baker,S. (2001). Teachingreadingcom- prehensionstrategiesto studentswithlearningdisabilities:A reviewofresearch. ReviewofEducationalResearch,71,279-320. Grigg,W.S.,Daane,M. C, Jin,Y.,& Campbell,J.R. (2003). Thenation'sreportcard: Reading2002 (NCES 2003-521).Washington,DC: U.S. DepartmentofEducation, NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,InstituteofEducationSciences.Retrieved January25,2006,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003521 Guthrie,J.T.,Wigfield,A., & VonSecker,C. (2001). Effectsofintegratedinstruction onmotivationandstrategyuseinreading.JournalofEducationalPsychology,92(2), 331-341. Hasselbring,T.S.,& Goin,L. I. (2004).Literacyinstructionforolderstrugglingreadings: Whatistheroleoftechnology?ReadingandWritingQuarterly,20, 123-144. Heilman,A.W.,Blair,T.R.,& Rupley,W.H. (1998). Principlesandpracticesofteach- ingreading(9thed.). Columbus,OH: Merrill/PrenticeHall. Jenkins,J.R.,Heliotis,J.,Stein,M. L., & Haynes,M. (1987). Improvingreadingcom- prehensionbyusingparagraphrestatements.ExceptionalChildren,54,54-59. Jimenez,R. T.,Garcia,G. E., & Pearson,P.D. (1995). Threechildren,twolanguages, and strategicreading:Case studiesin bilingual/monolingualreading.American EducationalResearchJournal,32,67-97. Jimenez,R. T.,Garcia,G. E., & Pearson,P.D. (1996). Thereadingstrategiesofbilin- gualLatinostudentswhoaresuccessfulEnglishreaders:Opportunitiesandobsta- cles.ReadingResearchQuarterly,31,90-1 12. InstituteofEducationSciences.(2003). WhatWorksClearinghousestudyreviewstan- dards.RetrievedJanuary10,2005,fromhttp://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewpro- cess/study_standards_final.pdf Jitendra,A. K., Hoppes,M. K., & Xin,Y. P.(2000). Enhancingmainideacomprehen- sionforstudentswithlearningproblems:Theroleofa summarizationstrategyand self-monitoringinstruction.JournalofSpecialEducation,34, 127-139. Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescentsand literacy:Readingfor the 21st century. Washington,DC: AllianceforExcellentEducation. Kamil,M. L. (2004). Vocabularyandcomprehensioninstruction:Summaryandimpli- cationsoftheNationalReadingPanelfindings.InP.McCardle& V.Chhabra(Eds.), The voice of evidencein readingresearch(pp. 213-234). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes. Kim,A.,Vaughn,S.,Wanzek,J.,& Wei,S. (2004). Graphicorganizersandtheireffects on thereadingcomprehensionof studentswithlearningdisabilities.Journalof LearningDisabilities,37, 105-118. Kintsch,W.,& Kintsch,E. (2004). Comprehension.InS. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl(Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionand assessment(pp. 71-92). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Klingner,J.K., & Vaughn,S. (1996). Reciprocalteachingofreadingcomprehension strategiesforstudentswithlearningdisabilitieswhouse Englishas a secondlan- guage.ElementarySchoolJournal,96,275-293. Klingner,J.K.,Vaughn,S., & Boardman,A. (2007). Teachingreadingcomprehension tostudentswithlearningdisabilities.NewYork:Guilford. Kuhn,M. R.,& Stahl,S. A. (2003). Fluency:A reviewofdevelopmentalandremedial practices.JournalofEducationalPsychology,95(1), 3-21. Lauterbach,S. L., & BenderW. N. (1995). Cognitivestrategyinstructionforreading comprehension:A successforhighschoolfreshmen.HighSchoolJournal,79(1), 58-64. 297 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 38. Edmondsetal. MacArthur,C. A., & Haynes,J.B. (1995). StudentAssistantforLearningfromText (SALT): A hypermediareadingaid.JournalofLearningDisabilities,28, 150-159. Mastropieri,M. A.,Scruggs,T. E., Bakken,J.P.& Whedon,C. (1996). Readingcom- prehension:A synthesisofresearchinlearningdisabilities.AdvancesinLearning andBehavioralDisabilities,10B,201-227. Mastropieri,M. A., Scruggs,T. E., & Graetz,J.E. (2003). Readingcomprehension instructionforsecondarystudents:Challengesforstrugglingstudentsandteachers. LearningDisabilityQuarterly,26, 103-116. Mastropieri,M. A.,Scruggs,T.,Mohler,L.,Beranek,M.,Spencer,V, Boon,R.T.,etal. (2001). Can middleschoolstudentswithseriousreadingdifficultieshelpeachother andlearnanything?JournalofLearningDisabilities,16, 18-27. Mercer,C. D., Campbell,K. U., Miller,M. D., Mercer,K. D., & Lane,H. B. (2000). Effectsofa readingfluencyinterventionformiddleschoolerswithspecificlearning disabilities.LearningDisabilitiesResearchandPractice,15, 179-189. Moore,P. J.,& Scevak,J.J.(1995). The effectsofstrategytrainingon highschool students'learningfromsciencetexts.EuropeanJournalofPsychologyofEducation, 70,401^10. NationalInstituteforLiteracy.(2001). Putreadingfirst:Theresearchbuildingblocks forteachingchildrentoread.Jessup,MD: Author. NationalReadingPanel.(2000). Reportofthenationalreadingpanel: Teachingchil- drento read. Rockville,MD: National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development. No ChildLeftBehindActof2001,Pub.L. No. 107-110,115Stat.1425(2002). Palincsar,A. S., Brown,A. L., & Martin,S. M. (1987). Peerinteractioninreading comprehensioninstruction.EducationalPsychologist,22,231-253. Paris,S. G., Carpenter,R. D., Paris,A. H., & Hamilton,E. E. (2004). Spuriousand genuinecorrelatesofchildren'sreadingcomprehension.InS. G. Paris& S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children'sreadingcomprehensionandassessment(pp. 131-160).Mahwah, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Paris,S. G., Lipson,M. Y., & Wixson,K. K. (1983). Becominga strategicreader. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology,8(3), 293-316. Paris,S. G.,Wasik,B. A.,& Turner,J.C. (1991). Thedevelopmentofstrategicreaders. InP.D. Pearson,R. Barr,M. L., Kamil,& P.Mosenthal(Eds.),Handbookofreading research(Vol.2,pp.609-640). WhitePlains,NY: Longman. Penney,C. G. (2002). Teachingdecodingskillstopoorreadersinhighschool.Journal ofLiteracyResearch,34,99-118. Pressley,M. (2000). Whatshouldcomprehensioninstructionbe theinstructionof?In M. Kamil,P.Mosenthal,P.Pearson,& R. Barr(Eds.),Handbookofreadingresearch (Vol.3,pp.545-562). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Pressley,M., & Afflerbach,P.(1995). Verbalprotocolsofreading:Thenatureofcon- structivelyresponsivereading.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. RAND ReadingStudyGroup.(2002). Readingforunderstanding:Towardan R&D programinreadingcomprehension.SantaMonica,CA: RAND. Raudenbush,S. W.(2005). Learningfromattemptstoimproveschooling:Thecontri- butionofmethodologicaldiversity.EducationalResearcher,34(5), 25-31. Rosenshine,B., & Meister,C. (1994). Reciprocalteaching:A reviewoftheresearch. ReviewofEducationalResearch,64(4), 479-530. Rosenthal,R.,& Rubin,D. B. (1986). Meta-analyticproceduresforcombiningstudies withmultipleeffectsizes.PsychologicalBulletin,99(3), 400-406. 298 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 39. OlderStrugglingReaderSynthesis Scott,T.M, & Shearer-Lingo,A. (2002). Theeffectsofreadingfluencyinstructionon theacademicandbehavioralsuccessofmiddleschoolstudentsina self-contained EBD classroom.PreventingSchoolFailure,46, 167-173. Scruggs,T. E., Mastropieri,M. A., & Casto,G. (1987). The quantitativesynthesisof singlesubjectresearch.RemedialandSpecialEducation,8(2), 24-33. Shadish,W. R. (2002). Revisitingfieldexperimentation:Field notesforthefuture. PsychologicalMethods,7(1), 3-18. Shadish,W.R. & Haddock,C. K. (1994). Combiningestimatesofeffectsize. InH. Cooper& L. Hedges(Eds.), Thehandbookofresearchersynthesis(pp. 261-284). NewYork:Sage. Snow,C. E. (2003). Assessmentofreadingcomprehension.InA. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinkingreadingcomprehension(pp.192-206). New York: Guilford. Steventon,C. E., & Frederick,L. D. (2003). The effectsof repeatedreadingson studentperformanceinthecorrectivereadingprogram.JournalofDirectInstruction, 3, 17-27. Strong,A. C, Wehby,J.H., Falk, K. B., & Lane, K. L. (2004). The impactof a structuredreadingcurriculumandrepeatedreadingon theperformanceofjunior highstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.SchoolPsychologyReview, 55,561-581. Swanson,H. L. (1999). ReadingresearchforstudentswithLD: A meta-analysisof interventionoutcomes.JournalofLearningDisabilities,32,504-532. Swanson,H. L., & Hoskyn,M. (2001). Instructingadolescentswithlearningdisabili- ties:A componentand compositeanalysis.LearningDisabilitiesResearchand Practice,16,109-120. Swanson,H. L.,Hoskyn,M, & Lee,C. (1999). Interventionsforstudentswithlearning disabilities.NewYork:Guilford. Underwood,T., & Pearson,D. P. (2004). Teachingstrugglingadolescentreadersto comprehendwhattheyread.InT. L. Jetton& J.A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescentliteracy researchandpractice(pp. 135-161). NewYork:Guilford. Vallecorsa,A. L., & deBettencourt,L. U. (1997). Usinga mappingproceduretoteach readingand writingskills to middlegrade studentswithlearningdisabilities. EducationandTreatmentofChildren,20, 173-189. Valleley,R. J.,& Shriver,M. D. (2003). An examinationoftheeffectsofrepeated readingswith secondarystudents.Journalof Behavioral Education, 12(1), 55-76. Wanzek,J.,Vaughn,S.,Wexler,J.,Swanson,E. A.,& Edmonds,M. (2006). A synthe- sisofspellingandreadinginterventionsandtheireffectson thespellingoutcomes forstudentswithLD. JournalofLearningDisabilities,39(6), 528-543. Wilder,A. A., & Williams,J.P.(2001). Studentswithseverelearningdisabilitiescan learnhigherordercomprehensionskills.JournalofEducationalPsychology,93, 268-278. Williams,J.P.,Brown,L. G., Silverstein,A. K., & deCani,J.S. (1994). An instruc- tionalprogramincomprehensionofnarrativethemesforadolescentswithlearning disabilities.LearningDisabilitiesQuarterly,17,205-221. Wong,B. Y. L., & Jones,W. (1982). Increasingmetacomprehensioninlearningdis- abled and normallyachievingstudentsthroughself-questingtraining.Learning DisabilityQuarterly,5,228-240. Woodruff,S.,Schumaker,J.B.,& Deschler,D. (2002). Theeffectsofan intensiveread- inginterventiononthedecodingskillsofhighschoolstudentswithreadingdeficits 299 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  • 40. Edmondsetal. (Report No. RR-15). Washington,DC: Special Education Programs.(ERIC DocumentReproductionServiceNo. ED46929) Authors MEAGHAN S. EDMONDS, PhD, is a researchassociate at theVaughnGross Centerfor Reading and Language Artsat theUniversityof Texas at Austin,Meadows Centerfor PreventingEducationalRisk,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail:msedmonds@mail.utexas.edu.She holdsa doctoratein educationalpsychology,a master'sdegreeincurriculumand instruction,and an MEd in programevaluation.Her currentresearchis focusedon readingcomprehensionand pol- icyevaluation. SHARON VAUGHN, PhD, holdstheH. E. Hartfelder/SouthlandCorporationRegentsChair inHumanDevelopmentandistheexecutivedirectoroftheMeadows CenterforPreventing Educational Risk at theUniversityof Texas at Austin,College of EducationSZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail:srvaughnum@aol.com.She was theeditorinchiefoftheJournalofLearningDisabilitiesandthecoeditorofLearning Disabilities Research and Practice. She is the recipientof theAmericanEducational ResearchAssociationSpecial EducationSIG DistinguishedResearcheraward.She is cur- rentlytheprincipalinvestigatororcoprincipalinvestigatoronseveralInstituteforEducation Science, National Institutefor Child Health and Human Development, and Officeof Special EducationProgramsresearchgrantsinvestigatingeffectiveinterventionsforstu- dentswithreadingdifficultiesas wellas studentswhoareEnglishlanguagelearners. JADE WEXLER, PhD, is a research associate at the Meadows Center forPreventing EducationalRisk at theUniversityofTexas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: jwexler@mail.utexas.edu. Herresearchinterestsareinterventionsforadolescentswithreadingdifficulties,response tointervention,and teachereducation. COLLEEN REUTEBUCH, PhD, servesas a projectcoordinatorfortheCenterforResearch oftheEducationalAchievementandTeachingofEnglishLanguage Learners(CREATE) ProjectattheMeadows CenterforPreventingEducationalRiskattheUniversityofTexas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 787 12- 0365; e-mail: ckreutebuch@mail.utexas.edu.Her researchinterestsincludereadingand contentarea interventions. AMORY CABLE, PhD, is a speech-languagepathologistand is currentlywritingsumma- riesofresearchfora speech-languageclinical database. Via Siciliani 44, Bisceglie, BA CAP 70052; e-mail:amory.cable@gmail.com. KATHRYN KLINGLER TACKETT, MEd, is a doctoralcandidateattheUniversityofTexas at Austinin theDepartmentof Special Education(in learningdisabilitiesand behavior disorders),anassistantinstructorwiththeDepartmentofSpecial Education,anda research assistantwiththeCenteron Instruction,Special EducationStrand,whichis housedatthe VaughnGross CenterforReading and Language Arts,Universityof Texas at Austin, College of Education SZB 228, 1 UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: katieklingler@ mail.utexas.edu. JENNIFER WICK SCHNAKENBERG is theassociate directoroftheTexas ReadingFirst InitiativeattheVaughnGrossCenterforReadingandLanguage ArtsattheUniversityof Texas atAustin,College ofEducationSZB 228, 1UniversityStationD4900, Austin,TX 78712-0365; e-mail: jennwick@mail.utexas.edu. She providestechnicalassistance to state-level,district-level, and campus-level personnel.She trainspersonnelon using assessment,implementingthethree-tiermodel effectively,and providingeffectiveand comprehensivereadinginstructionto all students.In addition,she supervisestechnical assistanceand professionaldevelopmentteammembers. 300 This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:46:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions