Reducing achievement gaps in academic writing for Latinos and English learners in Grades 7–12.

Olson, Carol Booth; Matuchniak, Tina; Chung, Huy Q.; Stumpf, Rachel; Farkas, George

doi:10.1037/edu0000095

Cited by 39 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Olson et al. () found statistically significant differences (ES = 0.07, p < .05), and the weighted average across the two Pathway studies (Olson et al., ; Olson, Matuchniak, Chung, Stumpf, & Farkas, ) was 0.08. Expository Reading and Writing Course is another example.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students

Baye

Inns

Lake

et al. 2018

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TRecent initiatives in the United States and United Kingdom have added greatly to the amount and quality of research on the effectiveness of secondary reading programs, especially programs for struggling readers. In this review of the experimental research on secondary reading programs, the authors focused on 69 studies that used random assignment (n = 62) or high-quality quasi-experiments (n = 7) to evaluate outcomes of 51 programs on widely accepted measures of reading. Categories of programs using one-to-one and small-group tutoring, cooperative learning, whole-school approaches including organizational reforms such as teacher teams, and writing-focused approaches showed positive outcomes. Individual approaches in a few other categories also showed positive impacts. Categories in which these individual programs appear include programs emphasizing social studies/science, structured strategies, and personalized and group/personalization rotation approaches for struggling readers. Programs that provide a daily extra period of reading and those utilizing technology were no more effective, on average, than programs that did not provide these resources. The findings suggest that secondary readers benefit more from socially and cognitively engaging instruction than from additional reading periods or technology.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students

Baye

Inns

Lake

et al. 2018

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five studies (J.S. Kim et al, ; Murphy & Appel, ; Olson & Land, ; Olson, Matuchniak, Chung, Stumpf, & Farkas, ; Stevens, ) had sample sizes that exceeded the outlier status of N = 2,125. The standard errors for reading and writing ESs were adjusted accordingly.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta‐Analysis

Graham

Liu

Aitken

et al. 2017

Reading Research Quarterly

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TReading and writing are critical to students' success in and outside of school. Because they draw on common sources of knowledge and cognitive processes, involve meaning making, and can be used conjointly to accomplish important learning goals, it is often recommended that reading and writing should be taught together. This meta-analysis tested this proposition by examining experimental intervention studies with preschool through high school students to determine whether literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction strengthen students' reading and writing performance. To be included in this review, no more than 60% of instruction could be devoted to either reading or writing. As predicted, these programs improved students' reading, resulting in statistically significant effects when reading measures were averaged in each study (effect size [ES] = .39) or assessed through measures of reading comprehension (ES = .39), decoding (ES = .53), or reading vocabulary (ES = .35). The programs also statistically enhanced writing when measures were averaged in each study (ES = .37) or assessed via writing quality (ES = .47), writing mechanics (ES = .18), or writing output (ES = .69). These findings demonstrated that literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction can strengthen reading and writing and that the two skills can be learned together profitably. R eading and writing are essential for success in school, at work, and in everyday life. Students use reading to analyze and acquire information presented in online text, books, and other printed materials (Berman, 2009), whereas writing is used to sharpen and promote students' learning and assess what they know (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004;Graham, 2006). Reading and writing serve multiple purposes in white-collar and blue-collar jobs today (Greene, 2000; National Commission on Writing for America's Families, Schools, and Colleges, 2004, 2005). This includes, but is not limited to, reading and writing to acquire and share information, communicating with other employees and the public at large, tracking and recording pertinent information, and developing reports and disseminating policies. Reading and writing also permeate day-to-day life, as Facebook, texting, tweeting, blogging, emailing, and other forms of digital literacy are prevalent.Despite the importance of reading and writing to life in the 21st century, there is considerable concern that many youngsters do not acquire the literacy skills needed to be successful in an increasingly digital and information-based world (e.g.

show abstract

“…The risk of bias for the continued professional development interventions were medium -low (see Table 20). Two studies report on the same intervention, the Pathway Project (Matuchniak et al, 2014;Olson et al, 2017), but the papers report results from different participant samples.…”

Section: Continued Professional Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language (EAL)

Oxley

Cat

2019

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A synthesis of evidence discussing the effectiveness of language and literacy interventions in children with English as an additional language. Our key research questions were: 1) What intervention studies have been published since 2014 addressing the language and literacy development of children with English as an additional language? 2) What is the impact of those interventions? We sought to update a 2015 systematic review evaluating language and literacy outcomes for EAL children (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015) with current intervention studies and to see which of those interventions could be adapted for classrooms in the UK. Methods: Four databases were searched; PsychInfo, British Education Index, Education Resources Information Center and Web of Science. Only peer reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2017 and written in English were included. The population tested were children of school age with English as an Additional Language who were classed as typically developing. All interventions had language or literacy as an outcome. Data was extracted using a standardised form and quality was assessed through a risk of bias analysis. From this screening process, 26 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current review. Key Findings:  Explicit vocabulary instruction and targeted oral language practise yield language gains for EAL learners, with a tendency for larger intervention gains in learners with the lowest initial pre-test scores.  Shared reading interventions show positive effects when combined with the preteaching of vocabulary, embedded definitions into the text, or post-reading reinforcement activities.  Voice recognition software appears promising, as demonstrated in three interventions with small to medium effects on reading fluency and comprehension.  There is a lack of interventions taking place in the UK.  There is a lack of interventions for adolescents, especially those in upper secondary school (ages 14-18).  More interventions targeting continued professional development for teachers are recommended. Conclusions: Children with English as an additional language can benefit from targeted interventions. Suggestions are made as to how the most beneficial interventions could be replicated in the UK. Limitations: Limitations include a variability in terms of the rigour of intervention methodologies, leading to a high risk of bias and inconsistent effect sizes for several studies in this report. A proportion of successful interventions used the child's first language to aid learning. Such interventions might not be replicable in the UK, where classrooms typically feature children from a very large number of different home languages.

show abstract

Reducing achievement gaps in academic writing for Latinos and English learners in Grades 7–12.

Cited by 39 publications

References 30 publications

A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students

A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Reading Programs for Secondary Students

Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta‐Analysis

A systematic review of language and literacy interventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language (EAL)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About