Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Examining Intelligent Tutoring of Structure Strategy for Fifth-Grade Readers

Wijekumar, Kay; Meyer, Bonnie J. F.; Lei, Pui Wa; Lin, Yonghong; Johnson, Lori A.; Spielvogel, James; Shurmatz, Kathryn M.; Ray, Melissa; Cook, Michael

doi:10.1080/19345747.2013.853333

Cited by 52 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A standardized test is any examination that is administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. The standardized tests included in this meta‐analysis were: Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (WRMT) (eg, Chalmers et al ., 2008a; Mostow, Nelson‐Taylor, & Beck, ), Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) (eg, Franzke, Kintsch, Caccamise, Johnson, & Dooley, ) and the Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) (eg, Wijekumar, Meyer, & Lei, , , ; Wijekumar et al ). Researcher‐designed measures were often proximal measures of learning developed by the researchers, which assessed knowledge of the constructs that were taught within the intervention.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis

Xu¹,

Wijekumar²,

Ramı́rez³

et al. 2019

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta‐analysis examined the effectiveness of improving reading comprehension for students in K‐12 classrooms using intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), a computer‐based learning environment that provides customizable and immediate feedback to the learner. Nineteen studies from 13 publications incorporating approximately 10 000 students were included in the final analysis; using robust variance estimation to account for statistical dependencies, the 19 studies yielded 88 effect size estimates. The meta‐analysis indicated that the overall random effect size of ITSs on reading comprehension was 0.60 (using a mix of standardized and researcher‐designed measures) with a 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.85 (p < 0.001). This review confirms previous studies comparing ITSs to human tutoring: ITSs produced a small effect size when compared to human tutoring (0.20, 0.02–0.38, p = 0.036, n = 21). All comparisons to human tutoring used standardized measures. This review also found that ITSs produced a larger effect size on reading comprehension when compared to traditional instruction (0.86) for mixed measures and (0.26) for standardized measures. These findings may be of interest to practitioners and policy makers seeking to improve reading comprehension using consistent and accessible ITSs. Recommendations for researchers include conducting studies to understand the difference between traditional and updated versions of ITSs and employing valid and reliable standardized tests and researcher‐designed measures.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis

Xu¹,

Wijekumar²,

Ramı́rez³

et al. 2019

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most were small changes, but we also made some changes that were rather important from a design point of view. First, it became clear very early in our pilot work that the instruction typically given to older students in which students used clue words as the initial identifiers of a text's structure (e.g., Wijekumar et al, 2014), was not appropriate for our younger students. Second-graders do not have sufficient reading skill to be able to scan text in order to pick out clue words.…”

Section: Close Analysis Of Texts With Structure (Cats)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Text structure instruction: the research is moving forward

Williams

2018

Read Writ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One intervention strategy for comprehending expository texts that has received a great deal of attention is teaching students to recognize expository text structures (Hall, Sabey, & McClellan, 2005;Meyer et al, 2010;Meyer, Wijekumar, & Lin, 2011;Wijekumar et al, 2014;Wijekumar, Meyer, & Lei, 2012;Williams et al, 2007Williams et al, , 2014Williams, Stafford, Lauer, Hall, & Pollini, 2009). Text structure is the organization of ideas, the relationship among the ideas, and the vocabulary used to convey meaning to the reader (Armbruster, 2004;Shanahan et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exposing students, as early as grades K-3, to expository text and teaching them to recognize text structures may build students' understanding and recall of key ideas (Shanahan et al, 2010). Explicitly teaching text structures may help typically achieving students, students at risk for reading difficulties, and students with learning disabilities (LD) organize and integrate textual information to increase their recall and comprehension of expository text (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987;Dickson et al, 1995;Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011;Shanahan et al, 2010;Weisberg & Balajthy, 1989;Wijekumar et al, 2014;Williams et al, 2009Williams et al, , 2014. Knowledge of text structures may lead students to ask relevant questions about the material and may also help students actively monitor their understanding of what they are reading (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Expository Text Structure Interventions on Comprehension: A Meta‐Analysis

Pyle

Vasquez

Lignugaris

et al. 2017

Reading Research Quarterly

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta‐analysis synthesizes results from expository text structure interventions designed to increase comprehension for students in kindergarten to grade 12 published between 1970 and 2013. Twenty‐one studies were identified, 19 of which met criteria for a meta‐analysis, including 48 studywise effect sizes that were meta‐analyzed to determine (a) how effective expository text structure interventions are in improving comprehension and (b) what features of expository text structure interventions (e.g., number of text structures taught, type of implementer) are associated with improved comprehension outcomes. A random‐effects analysis yielded a significant mean effect of .95 overall and a significant mean effect of 1 for researcher‐developed comprehension measures. Moderator analyses indicated significant differences in student comprehension outcomes, favoring researchers as implementers, 11–20 hours of interventions, one or two text structures taught, and students in the elementary grades. Instructional features of expository text structure interventions and implications for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Examining Intelligent Tutoring of Structure Strategy for Fifth-Grade Readers

Cited by 52 publications

References 33 publications

The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis

The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis

Text structure instruction: the research is moving forward

Effects of Expository Text Structure Interventions on Comprehension: A Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About