A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research on Reading Intervention Classes in Secondary Schools

Abstract

Background/Context: In the past two decades there have been at least 10 quantitative reviews, syntheses, or meta-analyses focused on literacy interventions in secondary schools. To date, much of this research has focused on quantifiable outcomes such as reading test scores, and few efforts have been made to synthesize studies of adolescent literacy interventions that attend to how students themselves experience those interventions and what mediates their experiences, which previous adolescent literacy research suggests should be considered alongside other outcomes. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This meta-synthesis of qualitative research highlights additional factors that are overlooked when evidence of effectiveness is defined predominantly through assessment outcomes. It contributes insights from two decades of research on reading intervention classes (RICs), which are a long-standing approach to adolescent literacy intervention. We define RICs as compulsory, yearlong courses that supplement content-area classes with the goal of improving adolescents’ reading. Grounded in sociocultural theories of literacy and learning, our research question was: How do students experience and perceive RICs? Research Design: We conducted a qualitative meta-synthesis of 21 studies published between 2000 and 2020 that (1) focused on secondary (grades 6–12) RICs in the United States and (2) included data related to students’ experiences and perspectives. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed best practices in qualitative meta-synthesis, including assembling an author team composed of researchers with expertise in RICs, identifying a research meta-question, conducting a comprehensive search, selecting and appraising relevant studies, and coding and presenting findings using qualitative techniques. Findings/Results: We found that youth’s own diverse understandings of themselves as readers and writers, combined with the extent to which they viewed their RICs as relevant, agentive, and facilitative of relationships, mediated students’ experiences and perceptions of their RICs. In addition, students across studies described placement policies and practices as confusing, frustrating, and embarrassing. Conclusions/Recommendations: By providing a perspective that extends beyond test scores, the findings highlight some of the consequences of intervention placement policies and practices for adolescents. They also address the need for educational stakeholders to expand definitions of what counts as evidence of effectiveness to inform the future development of re-mediated literacy learning opportunities for adolescents that (1) rethink curriculum and instruction to affirm students’ literacy identities, histories, and capacities, and (2) reposition youth as literacy knowers and doers.

Disrupting Secondary Reading Intervention: A Review of Qualitative Research and a Call to Action

“…As mentioned previously, elsewhere we have reported on another phase of this project: a qualitative meta-synthesis of a subset (n = 21) of the studies that included findings related to students' experiences and perspectives (Frankel et al, 2021). In this integrative critical literature review, we expanded the scope of our analysis to report on the broader corpus of studies (n = 36) and to focus on placement and curriculum as two under-examined structural aspects of reading intervention.…”

“…We briefly describe these procedures below. (For additional details and information about our process, see Frankel et al, 2021. )…”

“…Overall, across the studies in our review, students themselves reported feeling unaided, embarrassed, bored, and frustrated with their experiences of RI curricula (see Frankel et al, 2021). Some leveraged critiques of the curriculum, not only in terms of how it made them feel, but also how it was systemically flawed.…”

“…In subsequent screenings, at least two members of the author team separately reviewed each of the 57 articles in more depth. As part of this process, we used an appraisal tool that we adapted from Berry and Thunder (2012) to review and rate each article across five criteria, including research problem, purpose, and/or question; conceptual/theoretical framework; method: data collection and analysis; findings; and discussion/implications (see Frankel et al, 2021, Appendix B, available at https:// open.bu.edu/handl e/2144/42597). In cases of discrepancy in our ratings, we each reread the study in question and came to consensus through discussion.…”

“…We recently published one phase of our larger review project in which we conducted a qualitative meta‐synthesis focused on how students experience and perceive RI classes in secondary school (Frankel et al., 2021). In summary, we found that youths' understandings of themselves as readers and writers, combined with the extent to which they viewed their RIs as relevant, agentive, and facilitative of relationships, mediated their experiences and perceptions of RIs.…”