Skip to main content

Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that in controlled experiments in which small groups are being tutored by researchers, reading-strategy instruction is highly effective in fostering reading comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175, 1984). It is unclear, however, whether reading-strategy interventions are equally effective in whole-classroom situations in which the teacher is the sole instructor for the whole class. This meta-analysis focuses on the effects of reading-strategy interventions in whole-classroom settings. Results of studies on the effectiveness of reading-strategy interventions in whole-classroom settings were summarized (Nstudies = 52, K = 125) to determine the overall effects on reading comprehension and strategic ability. In addition, moderator effects of intervention, study, and student characteristics were explored. The analysis demonstrated a very small effect on reading comprehension (Cohen’s d = .186) for standardized tests and a small effect (Cohen’s d = .431) on researcher-developed reading comprehension tests. A medium overall effect was found for strategic ability (Cohen’s d = .786). Intervention effects tended to be lower for studies that did not control for the hierarchical structure of the data (i.e. multilevel analyses).For interventions in which “setting reading goals” was part of the reading-strategy package, effects tended to be larger. In addition, effects were larger for interventions in which the trainer was the researcher as opposed to teachers and effect sizes tended to be larger for studies conducted in grades 6–8. Implications of these findings for future research and educational practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

*Included in the meta-analysis

  1. *Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M, Gooden, R., & Bentum, K.E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838

  2. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. *Alfassi, M. (2009). The efficacy of a dialogic learning environment in fostering literacy. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 539–25; 563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902733626.

  5. *Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20482.

  6. *Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2011). Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.003.

  7. *Berkeley, S. & Riccomini, P.J. (2011). QRAC-the-code: A comprehension monitoring strategy for middle school social studies textbooks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(2) 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411409412.

  8. Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995—2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. *Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 424–433.

  10. *Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,102(2), 257–280.

  11. *Chambers Cantrell, S., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., & Carter, J. C. (2016). Supplemental reading strategy instruction for adolescents: A randomized trial and follow-up study. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917258.

  12. Chiu, C. W. T. (1998). Synthesizing metacognitive interventions: What training characteristics can improve reading performance? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper, L., Hedges, H., & Valentine, J. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Boer, H., Donker, A. S., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effects of the attributes of educational interventions on students’ academic performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 509–545. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Van de Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1348/00070990115866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Milliano, I. (2013). Literacy development of low-achieving adolescents; The role of engagement in academic reading and writing. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  18. *Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2), 79–89.

  19. *DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320.

  20. Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347–372). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Donker, A. S., De Boer, H., Kostons, D., van Ewijk, C. D., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Droop, M., Van Elsäcker, W., Voeten, M. J. M., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Long-term effects of strategic reading instruction in the intermediate elementary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1065528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Duffy, G. G. (1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 109–120 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 481–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. *Durukan, E. (2011). Effects of cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) technique on reading-writing skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1), 102–8; 109.

  28. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Egger, M., Smith, D. S., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. *Elbro, C. & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.774005.

  32. *Faggella-Luby, M., & Wardwell, M. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications of a tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 35–15; 49.

  33. *Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–12; 273.

  34. *Fogarty, M., Oslund, E., Simmons, D., Davis, J., Simmons, L., Anderson, L., Clemens, N., Roberts, G. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: A focus on treatment fidelity. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9270-6.

  35. *Graves, A. W., Brandon, R., Duesbery, L., McIntosh, A., & Pyle, N. B. (2011a). The effects of tier 2 literacy instruction in sixth grade: Toward the development of a response-to-intervention model in middle school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 73–14; 86.

  36. *Graves, A. W., Duesbery, L., Pyle, N. B., Brandon, R. R., & McIntosh, A. S. (2011b). Two studies of tier II literacy development: Throwing sixth graders a lifeline. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 641–21; 661.

  37. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. *Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387–30; 416.

  39. *Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., … & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational pPsychology, 96(3), 403–423.

  40. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. *Guthrie, J.T., McRae, A., Coddington, C.S., Lutz Klauda, S., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408331039.

  42. Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Hulleman, C. S., & Cordray, D. S. (2009). Moving from the lab to the field: The role of fidelity and achieved relative intervention strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. *Jitendra, A., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self- monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139.

  46. Johnston, P. (1984). Assessment in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 147–182). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  47. *Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C. K., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270040401.

  48. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. *Klingner, J.K, Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M.E., Tejero Hughes, M., & Ahwee Leftwich, S. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-World” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250050301.

  51. *Lau, K. & Chan, D. W. (2007). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on Chinese reading comprehension among Hong Kong low achieving students. Reading & Writing, 20(8), 833–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9047-5.

  52. *Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33(1), 91–106.

  53. *Lee, Y. (2014). Promise for enhancing children’s reading attitudes through peer reading: A mixed method approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(6), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.836469.

  54. Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620225079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  56. *Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., & Frijters, J. C. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410371678.

  57. *Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on title I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 163–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3702_3

  58. *Lucariello, J. M., Butler, A. G., & Tine, M. T. (2012). Meet the “reading rangers”: Curriculum for teaching comprehension strategies to urban third graders. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 9(2), 12.

  59. *Lundberg, I. & Reichenberg, M. (2013). Developing reading comprehension among students with mild intellectual disabilities: An intervention study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(1), 89–100, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.623179.

  60. *Mason, L.H., Davison, M.D., Hammer, C.S. et al. (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading & Writing, 26(7), 1133–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0.

  61. *McCown, M., & Thomason, G. (2014). Informational text comprehension: Its challenges and how collaborative strategic reading can help. Reading Improvement, 51(2), 237–253.

  62. *McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253.

  63. *Miller, C. A., Darch, C. B., Flores, M. M., Shippen, M. E., & Hinton, V. (2011). Main idea identification with students with mild intellectual disabilities and specific learning disabilities: A comparison of explicit and basal instructional approaches. Journal of Direct Instruction, 11, 15–29.

  64. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ng, C. C., Bartlett, B., Chester, I., & Kersland, S. (2013). Improving reading performance for economically disadvantaged students: Combining strategy instruction and motivational support. Reading Psychology, 34(3), 257–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. *Orbea, J. M. M., & Villabeitia, E. M. (2010). The teaching of reading comprehension and metacomprehension strategies. A program implemented by teaching staff. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 26(1), 112–122.

  67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2014). “Profile of student performance in reading”, in PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014): Student performance in mathematics, reading and science, OECD Publishing.

  68. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. *Ponce, H.C., López, M.J., Mayer, R.E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1170–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.013.

  73. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated learning. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  75. *Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., et al. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 517–544.

  76. *Radcliffe, R., Caverly, D., Hand, J., & Franke, D. (2008). Improving reading in a middle school science classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(5), 398–11; 408.

  77. *Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262–9; 270.

  78. *Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., McCoach, D. B., Jacobs, J. K., & Coyne, M. (2008). Using enrichment reading practices to increase reading fluency, comprehension, and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(5), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.5.299-315.

  79. *Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891.

  80. *Rojas-Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., & Vélez, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.x.

  81. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306400447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  83. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4-12:1980-2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. *Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Brunstein, J.C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002.

  85. Sencibaugh, J. M. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44(10), 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. *Simmons, D., Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Larsen, R., Willson, V., et al. (2010). A comparison of multiple-strategy methods: Effects on fourth-grade students' general and content-specific reading comprehension and vocabulary development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 121–36; 156.

  88. *Simmons, D., Fogarty, M., Oslund, E. L., Simmons, L., Hairell, A., Davis, J., Anderson, L., Clemens, N, Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Stillman, S., & Fall, A. (2014). Integrating content knowledge-building and student-regulated comprehension practices in secondary English arts classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836766.

  89. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. *Souvignier, E. & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy-instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 16(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.006.

  92. *Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2009). Fostering the reading comprehension of secondary school students through peer-assisted learning: Effects on strategy knowledge, strategy use, and task performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(4), 289–297.

  93. *Spörer, N., Brunstein, J.C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003.

  94. *Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Huang, J. (2008). Improving children's reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1552–1571.

  95. Swanson, H. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A., Stillman-Spisak, S. J., et al. (2013). Collaborative strategic reading: Findings from experienced implementers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.741661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original manuscripts [ca. 1930–1934]).

  100. *Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 987–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9263-4.

  101. *Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P.-W., Lin, Y.-C., Johnson, L. A., Spielvogel, J. A., Shurmatz, K. M., Ray, M., & Cook, M. (2014). Multisite randomized controlled trial examining intelligent tutoring of structure strategy for fifth-grade readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,7(4), 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.853333.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands organization for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands Initiative for Educational Research (NRO), with a PROO Review Studies grant, project 405-15-715.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariska Okkinga.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 20 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 58 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 28 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 230 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A.J.S. et al. Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 1215–1239 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Reading strategy
  • Intervention
  • Reading comprehension