Understanding reading comprehension : multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling adolescent readers
Date
2010-04
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ORCID
Type
Degree Level
Masters
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate methods for improving reading comprehension among struggling adolescent readers. More specifically, this study was concerned with: the effectiveness of pull-out intervention for reading outcomes in this population; the most effective type of intervention; and the contributions of instructional method to reading comprehension after decoding has been removed. These questions were answered with the help of 29 students from a rural school division in Saskatchewan who volunteered to participate in testing and various forms of reading intervention for a period of four to five weeks. Students were placed into one of three groups: the MSI group practiced decoding and learned six comprehension strategies; the FSI group practiced decoding and learned just two comprehension strategies; and the control group who participated in their typical education program.
In sum, the analysis produced the following results:
1.Pull-out intervention (pre-test M = 6.00; post-test M = 7.33) did not offer a statistically significant advantage over the typical classroom setting (pre-test M = 7.00; post-test M = 7.05) when attempting to remediate reading comprehension;
2.Participants in the MSI group demonstrated significant improvement on measures of decoding (p = .001; ©¯p2 = .75);
3.Although statistical testing did not reveal significant results, effect sizes were large for: participants in the MSI group on measures of fluency (©¯p2 = .39); participants in the FSI group on measures of fluency (©¯p2 = .53) and the Oral Reading Quotient (©¯p2 = .37); participants in the control group on measures of decoding (©¯p2 = .21), comprehension (©¯p2 = .38), fluency (©¯p2 = .32), and the Oral Reading Quotient (©¯p2 = .50); and
4.Decoding accounted for a statistically significant 15.4% of the unique variance in post-test comprehension scores (p = .03), but differences in grouping contributed a negligible amount (p = .1; R2 change = .004).
Description
Keywords
reading instruction, decoding, balanced literacy, reading disabilities, special education
Citation
Degree
Master of Education (M.Ed.)
Department
Educational Psychology and Special Education
Program
Educational Psychology and Special Education