Understanding reading comprehension : multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling adolescent readers
| dc.contributor.advisor | McIntyre, Laureen | en_US |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Renihan, Pat | en_US |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Hellsten, Laurie | en_US |
| dc.creator | Yee, Nikki L. | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-05T11:28:18Z | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-01-04T04:28:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-04-13T08:00:00Z | en_US |
| dc.date.available | 2013-01-04T04:28:13Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2010-04 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-04 | en_US |
| dc.date.submitted | April 2010 | en_US |
| dc.description.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). | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-04052010-112818 | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.subject | reading instruction | en_US |
| dc.subject | decoding | en_US |
| dc.subject | balanced literacy | en_US |
| dc.subject | reading disabilities | en_US |
| dc.subject | special education | en_US |
| dc.title | Understanding reading comprehension : multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling adolescent readers | en_US |
| dc.type.genre | Thesis | en_US |
| dc.type.material | text | en_US |
| thesis.degree.department | Educational Psychology and Special Education | en_US |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Educational Psychology and Special Education | en_US |
| thesis.degree.grantor | University of Saskatchewan | en_US |
| thesis.degree.level | Masters | en_US |
| thesis.degree.name | Master of Education (M.Ed.) | en_US |