Reading and Writing

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 1109–1129 | Cite as

A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency

  • James S. Kim
  • Jennifer F. Samson
  • Robert Fitzgerald
  • Ardice Hartry
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was (1) to examine the causal effects of READ 180, a mixed-methods literacy intervention, on measures of word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency and (2) to examine whether print exposure among children in the experimental condition explained variance in posttest reading scores. A total of 294 children in Grades 4–6 were randomly assigned to READ 180 or a district after-school program. Both programs were implemented 4 days per week over 23 weeks. Children in the READ 180 intervention participated in three 20-min literacy activities, including (1) individualized computer-assisted reading instruction with videos, leveled text, and word study activities, (2) independent and modeled reading practice with leveled books, and (3) teacher-directed reading lessons tailored to the reading level of children in small groups. Children in the district after-school program participated in a 60-min program in which teachers were able to select from 16 different enrichment activities that were designed to improve student attendance. There was no significant difference between children in READ 180 and the district after-school program on norm-referenced measures of word reading efficiency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Although READ 180 had a positive impact on oral reading fluency and attendance, these effects were restricted to children in Grade 4. Print exposure, as measured by the number of words children read on the READ 180 computer lessons, explained 4% of the variance in vocabulary and 2% of the variance in word reading efficiency after all pretest reading scores were partialed out.

Keywords

Reading intervention Adolescent literacy Mixed-methods literacy instruction Reading difficulties Randomized experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. However, the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the funding organization.

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (2006). The promise of automatic speech recognition for fostering literacy growth in children and adults. In M. C. McKenna, L. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 109–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 3, 1373–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  6. Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap-closing: When the “have-nots” gain, but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading, NCES 2006–469. Washington DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Deshler, D. D., & Hock, M. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Where we are, where we need to go. In M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, K. H. Perry, K. E. Reffitt, & J. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 98–128). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading first impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008–4016). Washington DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  13. Hartry, A., Fitzgerald, R., & Porter, K. (2008). Implementing a structured reading program in an after-school setting. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 181–210.Google Scholar
  14. Hasselbring, T., & Goin, L. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loveless, T. (2007). How well are American students learning?. Washington DC: Brown center on educational policy at brookings.Google Scholar
  19. McNamara, T. P., Miller, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: (Vol. 2, pp. 490–511). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  23. Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  28. Torgesen, J., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., et al. (2006). National Assessment of Title I Interim Report to Congress: Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap, First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s reading motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, K. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation (GRADE) technical manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Kim
    • 1
  • Jennifer F. Samson
    • 1
  • Robert Fitzgerald
    • 2
  • Ardice Hartry
    • 2
  1. 1.Harvard Graduate School of EducationCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.MPR Associates, Inc.BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations