The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers.

Abstract

This study examines the impact of the Learning Strategies Curriculum (LSC), an adolescent reading intervention program, on 6th-and 9th-grade students' reading comprehension and strategy use. Using a randomized treatment-control group design, the study compared student outcomes for these constructs for 365 students who received daily instruction in 6 LSC strategies and 290 students who did not receive intervention instruction. After 1 school year, 6th-grade students who received intervention instruction significantly outperformed students in the control group on a standardized measure of reading comprehension and reported using problem-solving strategies in reading to a greater extent than students in the control group. There were no significant differences between 9th grade intervention and control groups in reading comprehension or strategy use.

Teacher implementation of an adolescent reading intervention

“…While other research (e.g., Cantrell et al, 2013;Cantrell et al, 2010;Feldman et al, 2012;Simmons et al, 2014) that students who completed more of the workbook made greater gains from pretest to posttest, with effect sizes ranging from 0.08 to 0.35 (Kim et al, 2016). This suggests that students' completion of comprehension workbooks prepared them to achieve on standardized tests, and thus that workbook completion serves as an adequate proxy for literacy gains.…”

“…Third, the vast majority of intervention research is short-term, collecting data in the first year of implementation (e.g., Benner et al, 2011;Cantrell et al, 2013;Cantrell et al, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves et al, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Simmons et al, 2014;Solís et al, 2015;Vaughn et al, 2011). Therefore, these studies examine teachers' practice while teachers are still in the process of learning a new curriculum or instructional approach.…”

“…Furthermore, both studies examine mature implementation of the intervention, as all participating teachers were in at least their second year of implementation. This is rare in literacy intervention research, as most of the implementation literature is focused on teachers in their first year of implementation (e.g., Benner, Nelson, Stage, & Ralston, 2011;Burkhauser & Lesaux, 2015;Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, & Rintamaa, 2013;Cantrell et al, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves et al, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Leko, Roberts, & Pek, 2015;Simmons et al, 2014;Solís, Vaughn, & Scammacca, 2015;Vaughn et al, 2011).…”

“…Many promising interventions have been designed to improve adolescents' reading comprehension, but when implemented by classroom teachers, the effects of these interventions are often small (e.g., Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, Rintamaa, & Madden, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves, Brandon, Duesbery, McIntosh, & Pyle, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Vaughn et al, 2010) or nonexistent (e.g., Fogarty et al, 2014;Hitchcock, Dimino, Kurki, Wilkins, & Gersten, 2011;Kushman, Hanita, & Raphael, 2011;Simmons et al, 2014). These poor outcomes raise the question why carefully designed, research-based interventions have so little an effect on struggling adolescents' reading skills.…”

A systematic review of reading interventions for secondary school students

“…With regards the other three studies reported in Table 2 ( Cantrell et al, 2010;Vaughn et al, 2011;Vaughn et al, 2013) it is noteworthy that all produced similar (low) effect sizes on reading comprehension outcomes. The intervention reported by Cantrell et al was intensive and delivered for 50 -60 minutes per day over the course of a year.…”