Repository logo

Understanding reading comprehension : multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling adolescent readers

dc.contributor.advisorMcIntyre, Laureenen_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberRenihan, Paten_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberHellsten, Laurieen_US
dc.creatorYee, Nikki L.en_US 2010en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.subjectreading instructionen_US
dc.subjectbalanced literacyen_US
dc.subjectreading disabilitiesen_US
dc.subjectspecial educationen_US
dc.titleUnderstanding reading comprehension : multiple and focused strategy interventions for struggling adolescent readersen_US
dc.type.materialtexten_US Psychology and Special Educationen_US Psychology and Special Educationen_US of Saskatchewanen_US of Education (M.Ed.)en_US


Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
1008.81 KB
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
905 B
Plain Text