action research proposal for struggling readers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research

Jeanne wanzek.

Florida State University, School of Teacher Education and Florida Center for Reading Research, C234B Psychology, 1107 Call St., P.O. Box 306-4304, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA

Jade Wexler

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Sharon Vaughn

Stephen ciullo.

A synthesis of the extant research on reading interventions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in fourth and fifth grade (ages 9–11) is presented. Thirteen studies with treatment/comparison study designs and eleven single group or single subject studies were located and synthesized. Findings from the 24 studies revealed high effects for comprehension interventions on researcher-developed comprehension measures. Word recognition interventions yielded small to moderate effects on a range of reading outcomes. Few studies were located implementing vocabulary and multi-component interventions.

Introduction

Considerable research conducted over the past 30 years provides extensive knowledge regarding early intervention for young readers with reading difficulties ( Blachman et al., 2004 ; Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006 ; Felton, 1993 ; Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007 ; Jenkins & O’Connor, 2002 ; Lovett et al., 2000 ; Mathes et al., 2005 ; McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005 ; Torgesen et al., 1999 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ). These reports indicate that the highest student effects result when explicit, systematic instruction is provided in both foundation skills such as phonological awareness and phonics as well as higher level reading tasks, such as fluency, with increased attention to word meaning and understanding text ( National Reading Panel, 2000 ). Incorporating these elements of instruction has been associated with reducing the incidence of reading difficulties ( Torgesen, 2000 ).

In addition, recent syntheses have examined the efficacy of methods to improve reading outcomes for older students with reading difficulties that persist into grades 4–12 ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ; Torgesen et al., 2007 ). These reports indicate positive reading outcomes for older students when providing explicit instruction in (a) word study strategies to decode words, (b) word meanings and strategies for deriving the meanings of unknown words, and (c) comprehension strategy instruction. These findings hold specifically for students with reading difficulties ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ) and learning disabilities ( Scammacca et al., 2007 ) as well. Furthermore, recent reviews indicate that providing ample opportunities to practice and receive corrective feedback during instruction are associated with improved academic outcomes ( Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ; Shute, 2008 ).

Thus, the necessary components of effective reading instruction have been identified and synthesized for students in the younger grades (K-3) who struggle with reading acquisition, and the groundwork has been laid for research regarding effective reading intervention for students who struggle to read and comprehend in the secondary grades. Although a few studies in the previous syntheses of reading instruction for older readers have included students in grades 4–5, the findings largely reflect studies conducted with students in grades 6–12. Typically, there is an underlying assumption that 4th and 5th grade students are more similar to secondary students than elementary students. Kamil et al. (2008) best explained this assumption in a recently published Institute of Education Sciences practice guide document, “The panel purposefully included students in 4th and 5th grades within the realm of adolescents because their instructional needs related to literacy have more in common with those of students in middle and high school than they do with students in early elementary grades” (p. 1).

While there is some evidence from the previous syntheses that upper elementary students in grades 4–5 can benefit from the same interventions designed to meet the needs of students in grades 6–12, the findings for students in the upper elementary grades (4th–5th) have not previously been disaggregated and the recommended practices have been based mainly on studies conducted with students in grades 6–12. Furthermore, a synthesis focusing on reading interventions for students in grades 4 and 5 has not previously been conducted.

Teaching reading in the upper elementary grades: the unique needs of teachers

Unfortunately, despite our knowledge regarding effective instruction for young readers in the early elementary grades, it is estimated that 69% of fourth grade students cannot read at proficient levels with 36% of the fourth grade population unable to read at or above basic levels of understanding ( National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005 ). In the upper elementary grades, a shift from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” typically occurs. Thus, in addition to expectations that students have adequately mastered the basic reading skills such as decoding accurately and fluently, there are also expectations that students understand word meanings and are able to read text with comprehension ( Chall, 1983 ). The focus on these comprehension skills may be difficult for struggling readers who may still be learning to accurately and fluently decode grade level text. In addition, as early as fourth grade, students are presented with the supplementary challenge of transitioning from reading and understanding narrative text to reading and understanding content area expository text ( Grigg, Daane, Jin, & Campbell, 2003 ).

With the decreased emphasis on learning to read in the upper elementary grades, students who do not read proficiently by the end of the early elementary grades (K-3) may face serious consequences. Chall and Jacobs (1983) noted that many low income third graders reading at grade level experience a sudden drop in normative reading scores by the fourth grade, referring to this phenomenon as the “fourth grade slump”, indicating not that students go “backwards” in reading, but instead that they fail to thrive and cannot meet grade level expectations. The increased demands placed on students beginning in fourth grade may cause a slowing of reading growth relative to expected growth for some students who previously seemed on track in their reading growth. Teachers must be able to detect when a student is not thriving and intervene before the gap widens even more. Therefore, upper elementary teachers are often faced with the challenge of providing intervention not only for students with previously identified reading difficulties that have not been adequately remediated, but also students whose reading difficulties have manifested in the upper elementary grades.

Additionally, the trajectory of a young person’s academic success begins in the elementary grades, making it even more crucial to find ways to intervene and remediate deficits that persist into the upper elementary grades. When students experience a lack of success starting in elementary school, they may begin to disengage from school and be more inclined to drop out in the future ( Dynarski et al., 2008 ). It is necessary to determine appropriate methods to intervene with students in the upper elementary years before they reach the secondary grades and are then faced with a multitude of additional academic and social challenges.

Rationale and research question

We conducted this synthesis to examine the effects of reading interventions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in the upper elementary grades including students in grades 4–5. The findings are expected to contribute to the research and practice knowledge regarding interventions for students who struggle with reading beyond third grade. We addressed the following research question: How effective are reading interventions on reading outcomes for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in fourth and fifth grade?

Selection of studies

Studies were identified through a two-step process. First, we conducted an electronic search of ERIC and PsychInfo for studies published in the last 20 years (1988–2007). Key disability search terms and roots ( reading difficult *, disab *, dyslex *, special education ) were used in combination with key reading terms and roots ( reading, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehen *) to capture relevant articles. Second, we conducted a hand search of nine major journals (Exceptional Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Special Education, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Reading and Writing, Remedial and Special Education, and Scientific Studies of Reading) from 2006 through 2007 to ensure that all recently published studies meeting criteria were identified.

A total of 24 studies met selection criteria for the synthesis. Studies were selected based on the following criteria:

• More than 50% of the participants in the study were enrolled in 4th or 5th grade, or were 9–11 years old. Studies with less than 50% of the participants in 4th/5th grade were included if data were disaggregated for the 4th/5th grade population.
• Participants were struggling readers. Struggling readers were defined as low achievers, students with unidentified reading difficulties, dyslexia, and/or with reading, learning or speech/language disabilities. Studies also were included if disaggregated data were provided for struggling readers regardless of the characteristics of other students in the study.
• The interventions targeted reading instruction and articles were published in English.
• Reading intervention was provided for 15 sessions or more to ensure students with reading difficulties and disabilities received a sustained intervention prior to measurement of outcomes.
• A reading intervention including word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, or a combination of these was provided as part of school programming. Home teaching, clinic, or camp programs were excluded.
• The research design was treatment-comparison, single-group, or single-subject.
• Reading or reading related outcomes were measured.

Coding procedures

An extensive coding document was developed and used to organize essential information about each study. The code sheet was based on code sheets used in previous research ( Edmonds et al. 2009 ; Vaughn et al. 2003 ) as well as the What Works Clearinghouse Design and Implementation Assessment Device ( Institute of Education Sciences, 2003 ).

The pertinent information coded included the following: (a) participants, (b) methodology, (c) intervention and comparison information, (d) clarity of causal inference, (e) measures, and (f) findings. There were 3 coders for the articles. Interrater reliability was established by having each coder independently code a single article. Responses from each coder were used to calculate the percentage of agreement (i.e., agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements). Interrater reliability was calculated separately for each codesheet category (e.g., participants, design, etc.). An interrater agreement of 90% or above was achieved for each category (range 90–100%). Each study was then independently coded by 2 raters. If disagreements occurred, meetings were held to discuss the coding with final judgments reached by consensus.

Effect size calculation

In order to provide additional quantitative information for this systematic review of the literature, effect sizes were calculated where data were available. For studies with treatment and comparison groups, effect sizes were calculated adjusting for pre-test differences using a procedure by Bryant and Wortman (1984) . The quantity of the pretest treatment mean minus the pretest comparison mean was divided by the quantity of the pretest comparison standard deviation. This quantity was subtracted from the quantity of the posttest treatment mean minus the posttest comparison mean divided by the posttest comparison standard deviation. Thirteen of the 24 studies in this synthesis used a treatment/comparison design (9 experimental and 4 quasi-experimental). Data for calculation of effect sizes were available in 10 of these 13 studies.

Experimental and quasi-experimental studies

Nine experimental studies ( Mason, 2004 ; Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 ; Miranda, Villaescusa, & Vidal-Abarca, 1997 ; O’Connor et al., 2002 ; O’Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007 ; Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006 ; Takala, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ; Xin & Rieth, 2001 ) and four quasi-experimental studies ( Das, Mishra, & Pool, 1995 [Study 1 and 2]; Das-Smaal, Klapwijk, & van der Leij, 1996 ; Lederer, 2000 ) examined reading interventions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in the fourth and fifth grade. Summaries of the study characteristics and findings are presented in Tables ​ Tables1 1 and ​ and2. 2 . We present the effects of these studies by the type of intervention that was implemented in the study (e.g., word recognition, fluency).

Summary of study characteristics

SR Struggling readers; LD learning disabilities; RD reading; disabilities; LI language impaired; SLI speech/language impaired

Summary of study findings

T, Treatment; RD, Researcher-developed; WCPM, words correct per minute; C, comparison/control group; WRMT, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised; Word ID, word identification; WA, word attack; PC, passage comprehension; RT, response time; ns, non-significant; LAC, Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test; NARA, Neale Analysis of Reading Ability; AE, age equivalent; Comp., comprehension; F-U, Follow-up; na, not applicable; CRAB, Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; CBM, Curriculum-Based Measure; ARI, Analytical Reading Inventory; GORT-4, Gray Oral Reading Tests 4th Ed.; DIBELS, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; ORF, oral reading fluency; WJ-III, Woodcock Johnson III: BRC, Broad Reading Cluster; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Efficiency; GORT-III, Gray Oral Reading Test 3rd Ed.; CELF, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals; LAC, Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test; PDE, phonetic decoding efficiency; SWE, sight word efficiency; CTOPP, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; KTEA, Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement; SS, standard score

Vocabulary and comprehension

Five studies implemented interventions with a focus on comprehension skills and strategies ( Lederer, 2000 ; Mason, 2004 ; Miranda et al., 1997 ; Takala, 2006 ; Xin & Rieth, 2001 ). All of these studies measured outcomes with researcher-developed measures that measured the specific skills taught in the intervention; no norm-referenced measures were administered. In one experimental study, Mason compared the effects of a self-regulated strategy (Think before you reading, think While reading, think After reading [TWA]) to a second treatment of reciprocal questioning for students with both reading difficulties and disabilities. There was no business as usual or typical instruction control group. Students in the TWA intervention were taught to think about the author’s purpose, think about what they already know, and think about what they want to learn prior to reading. During reading, students were taught to think about their reading speed, linking knowledge, and rereading sections. Finally, students developed the main idea for each paragraph and summarized the information after reading. In the reciprocal questioning condition, students were taught to generate questions for the teacher about the passage read as well as answer questions about the text from the teacher. Effects were higher at posttest for the TWA intervention on researcher-developed measures assessing main ideas, summarizing, and retell (mean ES = .99). Effects in favor of TWA were similar when measures were administered 3 weeks following intervention (mean ES = .90).

Miranda et al. (1997) also compared the relative effects of two interventions with a comprehension focus, self-instruction and self-instruction plus attribution training, to a control group that did not receive either of the interventions. Students with learning disabilities were identified for participation in the interventions. Self-instruction included training and practice in strategies for activating previous knowledge, previewing text, self-questioning, clarifying unknown words, and mapping main ideas. Students were also taught a general self-instruction procedure to follow when completing a reading task (i.e., Stop, Think and Decide, Check, Confirm, Evaluate). The self-instruction plus attribution condition consisted of all the elements in the self-instruction condition plus teacher modeling and student practice using positive attributions in relation to their work. As a result of the time spent on attribution training this treatment group spent less time on the comprehension skills and strategies. Students in the self-instruction condition outperformed students in the control condition at posttest on researcher-developed measures assessing main ideas, recall, and cloze (mean ES = 3.46). Students in the self-instruction plus attribution training also outperformed the control group on the posttest measures (mean ES = 2.63). Two months following the completion of intervention the same measures were administered with mean effect sizes of 1.98 and 2.09 for the self-instruction group and the self-instruction plus attribution training group respectively.

A third experimental study investigated student understanding of text with a focus on teaching target vocabulary words in two conditions ( Xin & Rieth, 2001 ). Students with learning disabilities in both conditions read the same passages, were taught the same target vocabulary words to aid understanding of the passage, and completed the same comprehension activities. However, one group received video-assisted instruction, watching chapters of a videodisc with content related to the topic and including the target words while the second group received instruction using only printed texts. The video instruction group outperformed the nonvideo group on researcher-developed measures of word definitions and cloze using the vocabulary words taught during instruction (mean ES = .58). There were no differences between the groups on a researcher-developed measure of comprehension on the content taught in the interventions (ES = .02). Follow-up measures were administered 2 weeks following intervention with effects: (a) maintained in favor of the video instruction group for word definitions (ES = .53), (b) decreased for sentence cloze with the target words (ES = .16), and (c) consistent to the posttest for passage comprehension (ES = −.04).

The final two studies examined reciprocal teaching as an intervention for students with disabilities ( Lederer, 2000 ; Takala, 2006 ). Lederer implemented reciprocal teaching in social studies instruction for students with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms while Takala investigated the intervention for students with language and reading disabilities in special education classrooms in Finland. Neither study provided disaggregated data for the student participants meeting criteria for this synthesis that would allow for calculation of effect sizes. However, Lederer ran analyses on disaggregated data for the students with learning disabilities and reported no significant differences between the treatment and control groups on researcher-developed comprehension measures of answering questions and generating questions. Students with learning disabilities in the treatment group significantly outperformed students in the control group on composing summaries ( p < .05). Takala reported no significant differences between pretest and posttest scores for students with disabilities on researcher-developed measures of selecting the best title and main idea, and generating a question.

Two experimental studies implemented interventions with a focus on fluency instruction ( Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 ; O’Connor et al., 2007 ). Both studies examined treatment conditions using repeated reading of text or sustained/continuous reading of text along with a control condition. Mathes and Fuchs implemented the intervention with classwide peer-mediated instruction in special education resource rooms. Students with reading difficulties and disabilities in the O’Connor et al. study met one-on-one with an adult listener. In both studies, the number of minutes spent reading text was kept constant, with 9 min. of reading in the Mathes and Fuchs study (as well as 9 min. of listening to a peer) three times a week for 10 weeks, and 15 min of reading for the O’Connor et al. study implemented three times a week for 14 weeks. However, in the repeated reading condition of each study students reread the passages three times each. In the sustained or continuous reading conditions the students continuously read the text without repeating. In each condition either peers (Mathes & Fuchs) or the adult (O’Connor et al.) corrected errors during reading.

In the Mathes and Fuchs (1993) study, effects were low for the treatment conditions in comparison to the control condition across measures of fluency and comprehension (repeated reading mean ES = .08; sustained/continuous reading mean ES = .03). In contrast, higher effect sizes were found for both treatment conditions in the O’Connor et al. (2007) study across norm-referenced measures of fluency, word reading, and comprehension (repeated reading mean ES = .71; sustained/continuous reading mean ES = .69).

Word recognition

Four studies focused on word reading instruction as an intervention ( Das et al., 1995 [Study 1 and Study 2]; Das-Smaal et al., 1996 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). In an experimental study, Torgesen et al. examined two treatment conditions for students with learning disabilities that differed in the extent of instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills. No control group was included in the design of this study. In the auditory discrimination in depth (ADD) condition students spent approximately 95% of the lesson working with sounds and individual words including introduction to individual phonemes, practice reading and spelling individual words regular words and instruction of irregular words. Students then practiced reading with decodable text. Alternatively, the students in the embedded phonics (EP) condition spent about 50% of the instructional time on sounds and individual words and 50% in connected text activities. Explicit instruction was provided in phonics and reading/spelling words along with ample opportunities for students to practice reading connected text using trade books and basals. The students were introduced to sounds and practiced reading and spelling regular and irregular words. The students practiced reading with trade books and the basal and wrote sentences containing words from their sight word lists. A number of standardized measures were administered at posttest, 1 year follow-up, and 2 year follow-up to assess phonological awareness, word reading, comprehension, fluency, spelling, and expressive and receptive language (see Table 2 for measures). A mean effect size of .16 on these norm-referenced measures was found at posttest in favor of the ADD group. These effect sizes increased for the ADD group at 1 year (mean ES = .29), and for the 2 year follow-up were consistent with posttest (mean ES = .13).

In two studies conducted by Das et al. (1995) , the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive Remedial Program (PREP) was implemented for students with reading disabilities. Study 1 examined the full program including global (strategies such as rehearsal, categorization, and prediction for successive or simultaneous processing) and bridging (extending these strategies to word identification) components. In Study 2, one group of students received intervention in the global components only and, thus, practiced the strategies without words (e.g., sequencing geometric shapes) while a second group received intervention in the bridging components only and, thus, practiced the strategies only with words and text (e.g., sequencing letters to form a word and then reading the word). A control group in Study 1 became the treatment groups in Study 2 while the treatment group in Study 1 became the control group in Study 2. Thus, all students in Study 2 had received some form of PREP (global, bridging, or previously instructed combined program). In Study 1, students receiving PREP outperformed students in the no treatment control group on the word attack and word identification subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (mean ES = .70). In Study 2, effect sizes on the same measures favored the global (mean ES = .10) and bridging (mean ES = .34) groups over the control group of students who had previously received the combined PREP program in Study 1.

The study by Das-Smaal et al. (1996) implemented a computer-based program for students to practice detecting multi-letter units in words in Dutch. Students assigned to the control group received computer-based training in mathematical exercises similar to the cognitive and motor exercises of the training program provided to the treatment group. Posttest measures assessed student accuracy and speed on the computer tasks, detecting units that were trained and untrained, and reading real and pseudowords. The treatment group performed significantly better than the control group on reaction time for detecting units and reading pseudowords ( p < .05). No significant differences were reported on the accuracy of detecting units or reading real words. No norm-referenced measures were administered.

Multi-component

Two experimental studies examined the effects of a multi-component intervention for students with reading difficulties and disabilities ( O’Connor et al., 2002 ; Therrien et al., 2006 ). O’Connor et al. included phoneme awareness, word recognition and spelling, fluency, and comprehension in a 30 min, one-on-one intervention. Students were randomly assigned to receive this treatment with text matched to their reading level (reading level matched), receive the treatment using text from the classroom (classroom matched), or a control condition. Both treatment conditions outperformed the control condition on norm-referenced measures of phonemic awareness, word reading, comprehension, and fluency (reading level matched mean ES = 1.56; classroom matched mean ES = 1.26).

Therrien et al. (2006) incorporated fluency and comprehension components in 10–15 min one-on-one intervention. Students in the treatment condition read a new passage 2–4 times with feedback to reach a pre-established number of correct words per minute. This fluency instruction was followed by scaffolded assistance answering factual, inferential, and story structure questions. The treatment group demonstrated higher effects in comparison to the no-treatment control group in oral reading fluency (ES = .44) and general reading achievement as measured by the Broad Reading scale of the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test III (ES = .37).

Single group and single subject studies

Eleven studies examined the effects of reading interventions for single groups or individual students with reading difficulties and disabilities by examining student improvement ( Bruce & Chan, 1991 ; Butler, 1999 ; Daly & Martens, 1994 ; Ferkis, Belfiore, & Skinner, 1997 [Study 1 and 2]; Gillon & Dodd, 1997 ; Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006 ; Rich & Blake, 1994 ; Taylor, Alber, & Walker, 2002 ; Thaler, Ebner, Wimmer, & Landerl, 2004 ; Wright & Mullan, 2006 ). We describe these studies and their outcomes by intervention type.

Comprehension

Four single subject studies implemented interventions with a comprehension focus ( Bruce & Chan, 1991 ; Mason et al., 2006 ; Rich & Blake, 1994 ; Taylor et al., 2002 ). Following up on the experimental study of the self-regulated strategy TWA described earlier, Mason et al. implemented a single subject study of the TWA reading strategy instruction combined with PLANS (Pick goals, List ways to meet goals, And, make Notes and Sequence notes) writing strategy instruction. Three instructional groups of 3 students each were included in the study. Participants with both reading difficulties and disabilities were included. Reading outcome measures consisted of oral and written retells of expository science or social studies passages. Students were scored according to the number of information units included in the retell as well as the quality of the retell. Quality was rated on a 7-point scale (0 points to 6 points) researcher-developed scale based on the student capturing the main ideas of the passage in the retell. Mean increases in information units from baseline to postinstruction ranged from 5.34–5.86 for oral retell and 8.23–18.87 for written retell across the three instructional groups. Mean increases in quality scores ranged from 2.17 to 3.00 for oral retell and 2.47–3.00 for written retell.

Rich and Blake (1994) also implemented a comprehension intervention that included instruction in self-regulated learning. Students with language/learning disabilities received instruction in identifying main ideas, self-questioning, and paraphrasing with the teacher reading the expository text. During the intervention, students kept daily journals evaluating their cognitive and affective behaviors. Reading outcomes were measured with expository passages excerpted by the researchers from informal reading inventories and students responded to 8 questions about each passage. The authors report that all 5 students made improvements from the pretest to the posttest in listening comprehension with scores on the outcome measure ranging from 56–100% (2 students below 75% on posttest). Four of the students also improved from pretest to posttest in reading comprehension with scores ranging from 63–100% on the posttest measure (1 student below 75% on posttest).

However, Bruce and Chan examined reciprocal teaching in the resource room as well as techniques for assisting students with reading difficulties in generalizing strategies learned to the general education classroom. Student’s total comprehension scores on measures that included main ideas and passage details increased to 75–90% accuracy (with average baseline levels ranging from 16–20%). However, no unprompted transfer of skills was reported and student levels were lower in the transfer phase than in the resource room instructional phase.

Taylor et al. implemented an alternating treatments design to examine the effects of story mapping, self-questioning, and no intervention for individual students with learning disabilities. The accuracy of students’ responses during each phase of instruction was collected. Two of the students in this study met criteria for inclusion for this synthesis. One student, Joseph, demonstrated slightly higher comprehension scores in the self questioning and story mapping conditions over the no intervention phase. The second student, Michelle, had some overlap in scores between the no intervention and intervention phases initially with scores improving further during the intervention phases. Accuracy was high for both students in each of the intervention conditions (80.9 and 86.4% for Joseph and Michele in story mapping; 88.2 and 94.6% for Joseph and Michele in self-questioning).

One fluency intervention with students with learning disabilities utilized a single subject study ( Daly & Martens, 1994 ). A multi-element design was used to compare student accuracy and fluency under 3 pre-reading conditions: (1) subject passage preview with the student doing a first read of the passage without help from the teacher, (2) taped words with the student reading a word list of words from the passage along with an audio tape speeded at 80 words per minute, or (3) listening passage preview with the subject following along in the text while listening to the passage read on audiotape. Following each of these prereading conditions, the student read the passage for assessment. The largest increases for oral reading accuracy and fluency were seen under the listening passage preview. However, no discernible differences between baseline and the three conditions could be seen on word list reading.

Word reading

Six single group or single subject studies examined student outcomes from interventions focusing on word reading instruction ( Butler, 1999 ; Ferkis et al., 1997 [Study 1 and 2]; Gillon & Dodd, 1997 ; Thaler et al., 2004 ; Wright & Mullan, 2006 ). Four of the studies incorporated training in sight word reading: students practicing reading unknown words to mastery with a peer (Butler), an adult (Ferkis Study 1 and 2), or a computer (Thaler et al.). Butler reported an increase in word reading on words taught from 50–79% for students with reading disabilities. Similarly, Ferkis et al. reported students with learning disabilities mastered 12–14 words taught in each condition of Study 1 and 2, with one student obtaining mastery of 21–23 words taught during the intervention phases. Study 1 consisted of 2 conditions, one with 1 correct response per word required in each training session and a second condition requiring 5 correct responses per word during training. Study 2 continued with similar conditions to Study 1 except that students practiced the set of words three times. No discernible differences in the number of words learned based on the number of repeated responses required during training in either Study 1 or Study 2 were noted. Thaler et al. measured the reading time on trained words following intervention for students with reading difficulties and found that students showed decreases in reading time for the words following intervention. The students who pretested with higher reading times made the most gains in decreasing their reading times.

Two of the word reading interventions taught phonological skills to students with reading disabilities and measured students’ phonological awareness, reading accuracy, and comprehension using standardized measures of general skills in these areas ( Gillon & Dodd, 1997 ; Wright & Mullan, 2006 ). All students made gains in each area from pretest to posttest. The largest gains appeared on the phonological measures for both studies.

The primary purpose of this research synthesis was to determine the effectiveness of reading intervention for students in the upper elementary grades (fourth and fifth grade) on reading outcomes. We prioritized this grade group because previous syntheses have examined extensively the effectiveness of reading practices for students in grades K-3 (e.g., McCardle & Chhabra, 2004 ) and more recently reading interventions for older students (e.g., Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ) leaving many upper elementary teachers unclear about how these findings apply to their instruction. In addition, considerable evidence suggests that student’s reading comprehension takes a negative turn in the upper elementary grades, often referred to as the “fourth grade slump” ( Chall & Jacobs, 2003 ), and determining research-based practices for intervening is important.

Overall, the number of experimental studies available for analysis was relatively few ( n = 9) and represented a range of treatment foci that included comprehension, word reading, fluency, vocabulary, and two that were multi-component addressing multiple elements of reading. The largest number of experimental studies ( n = 5) addressed reading comprehension or vocabulary development and all of these studies used researcher-developed measures to address outcomes. We think it is encouraging that the majority of outcomes for the comprehension and vocabulary treatments yielded effects that were moderate to large in size. However, it is typical for researcher-developed measures to yield higher effect sizes ( Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999 ). This provides support for the influence of vocabulary and comprehension interventions on improving students’ understanding of text. However, the confidence in these findings would be more robust if the studies had not relied solely on researcher-developed measures. For vocabulary treatments, it is common that researcher-developed measures are used to tap the extent to which students learn the vocabulary words taught ( Scammacca et al., 2007 ). The rationale is that most vocabulary interventions are not perceived as being powerful enough to influence more broadly acquisition of untaught vocabulary which is what would be measured on more normative vocabulary measures (Scammacca et al.). The use of researcher-developed measures for comprehension is less necessary and it would be expected that researchers would use norm-referenced measures either solely or in combination with researcher-developed measures to assess the effects of treatment. Considering these caveats, we have learned from both the experimental studies and single-subject studies that for upper elementary students, comprehension practices that provided opportunities for students to preview text and connect with their knowledge, use self-questioning and self-regulating practices while reading, and summarize what they are learning were associated with moderate to high outcomes. It may be that these practices enhance the language functioning of target students with reading comprehension problems, many of whom are likely to also demonstrate low language ( Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004 ). These findings are in line with a previous research syntheses on reading comprehension outcomes with older students ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ).

Two of the studies addressed fluency in which repeated reading of text was compared with continuous reading. The amount of time students read the text was held constant but in one treatment condition students read the text only one time and continuously (sustained/continuous treatment) and in the other condition the text was read three times (repeated reading). Findings in one of the studies ( Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 ) yielded very low effects for both treatment conditions using peers, whereas in the second study ( O’Connor et al., 2007 ) moderate to large effects for fluency and comprehension resulted when students were paired with adults. Because these two studies do not provide converging outcomes for students with reading difficulties and disabilities, we would suggest that teachers integrate both repeated reading and continuous reading into their interventions and monitor students’ progress to determine effectiveness. Also, it appears as though an adult or very able reader as a model is associated with improved fluency outcomes ( Daly & Martens, 1994 ).

Word study interventions that assisted students in learning to map the sounds of language to letters and words were associated with small to moderate effects for fourth and fifth graders. In contrast to the comprehension interventions that may have inflated effects due to the administration of researcher-developed outcome measures, the three word recognition studies providing data for effect size calculation administered norm-referenced measures at posttest. The Edmonds et al. (2009) meta-analysis examining interventions for secondary students with reading difficulties also revealed that reading comprehension outcomes were positively affected by word study treatments; however as with the current studies, the results were small to moderate. These findings are similar to previous research that suggests for many students oral language proficiency as well as phonological knowledge relates to their course of reading development ( Nation & Snowling, 2004 ).

It also likely that many students with reading difficulties or disabilities in fourth and fifth grade may continue to have word recognition difficulties; whereas other students suffering from the “fourth grade slump” may struggle more specifically with the increased vocabulary and understanding the variety of complex texts in the content areas. Thus, a word recognition treatment may have a greater effect for students who continue to struggle with word recognition. None of the studies synthesized has examined differential effects for students participating in the interventions based on level of reading, but investigation in this area may help further explain effects.

Only two studies in this synthesis examined multi-component reading interventions. The findings of these two studies revealed that treatments that included two or more components of reading (e.g., word study and comprehension) were associated with moderate to large effects. The value of multi-component interventions for older students was confirmed in three syntheses examining the effects of treatments with secondary students ( Kamil et al., 2008 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ; Torgesen et al., 2007 ). Our interpretation of these findings is that older students may benefit when interventions focus on more than one element of reading. However, given the very small number of multi-component studies for students in grades 4–5 as well as the range of effects reported, additional research is needed to confirm the positive effects for multi-component interventions.

Summary of implications and further research

This synthesis of research for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in the upper elementary grades suggests: (a) instruction in comprehension strategies for application before, during, and after reading produces increased comprehension outcomes on researcher-developed measures, (b) mixed results for fluency interventions, (c) limited evidence (one study) for the effects of vocabulary instruction, and (d) multi-component interventions demonstrate promise for increasing student outcomes on a variety of measures. Fourth graders who struggle with reading can demonstrate a range of distinctive patterns of performance that contribute to their low reading comprehension difficulties and represent variation in performance on word identification, phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, rate of reading and expression ( Buly & Valencia, 2002 ). Future research may implement interventions that consider the type of reading comprehension problem and mapping interventions to specific comprehension problems.

Based on the current research, we also conclude that further research is needed to examine the effects of comprehension interventions on broad comprehension outcomes with standardized measures. Furthermore, we located only one vocabulary study and two multi-component studies for students with reading difficulties in the upper elementary grades. While previous syntheses have reported large effects for vocabulary interventions for secondary readers ( Kamil et al., 2008 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ) and moderate effects for multi-component interventions ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ), additional work is needed to determine the effects of these interventions for upper elementary students.

E.D. Hirsch (2003) states, “We’re finding that even though the vast majority of our youngest readers can manage simple texts, many students-particularly those from low-income families-struggle when it comes time in grade four to tackle more academic texts.” (p. 10). This synthesis was designed to reveal those instructional practices that research documents are associated with improved outcomes for upper elementary students with reading difficulties. While this synthesis, like many in education, is only as good as the extant research, we believe that the findings from this report provide initial guidance to teachers and educators about practices that they can integrate into their interventions.

Contributor Information

Jeanne Wanzek, Florida State University, School of Teacher Education and Florida Center for Reading Research, C234B Psychology, 1107 Call St., P.O. Box 306-4304, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

Jade Wexler, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Sharon Vaughn, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Stephen Ciullo, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan S, Shaywitz B, et al. Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 :444–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruce ME, Chan LKS. Reciprocal teaching and transenvironmental programming: A program to facilitate the reading comprehension of students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education. 1991; 12 :44–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryant FB, Wortman PM. Methodological issues in the meta-analysis of quasi-experiments. New Directions for Program Evaluation. 1984; 24 :5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buly MR, Valencia SW. Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002; 24 (3):219–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler FM. Reading partners: Students can help each other learn to read! Education and Treatment of Children. 1999; 22 :415–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall JS. Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall JS, Jacobs VA. Writing and reading in the elementary grades: Developmental trends among low-SES children. Language Arts. 1983; 60 :617–626. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall JS, Jacobs VA. Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator. 2003; 2 (1):14–15. see also 44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daly EJ, III, Martens BK. A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994; 27 :459–469. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Das JP, Mishra RK, Pool JE. An experiment on cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1995; 28 :66–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Das-Smaal EA, Klapwijk MJG, Leij A. Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction. 1996; 14 :221–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, Francis DJ. An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2006; 35 :447–466. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dynarski M, Clarke L, Cobb B, Finn J, Rumberger R, Smink J. Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; Washington, DC: 2008. Retrieved December 4, 2008, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc . [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmonds MS, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Reutebuch CK, Cable A, Tackett KK, et al. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79 :262–300. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felton R. Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological-processing problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1993; 26 :583–589. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferkis MA, Belfiore PJ, Skinner CH. The effects of response repetitions on sight work acquisition for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education. 1997; 7 :307–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Fuchs LS, Barnes MA. Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford; New York: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillon G, Dodd B. Enhancing the phonological processing skills of children with specific reading disability. European Journal of Disorders of Communication. 1997; 32 :67–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grigg WS, Daane MC, Jin Y, Campbell JR. National assessment of educational progress. The nation’s report card: Reading 2002. U.S. Department of Education; Washington, DC: 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77 :81–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirsch ED., Jr. Reading comprehension requires knowledge- of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and stagnant reading comprehension. American Educator. 2003; 27 (1):10–13. see also 16–22, 28–29, 48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences What works clearinghouse study review standards. 2003. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from What Works Clearinghouse Web site: http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/study_standards_final.pdf .
• Jenkins JR, O’Connor RE. Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In: Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan DP, editors. Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2002. pp. 99–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, Torgesen J. Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice Guide (NCEE#2008-4027) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; Washington, DC: 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederer JM. Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2000; 33 :91–106. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett MW, Lacerenza L, Borden SL, Frijters JC, Steinbach KA, DePalma M. Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92 :263–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason LH. Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 :283–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason LH, Snyder KH, Sukhram DP, Kedem Y. TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine-fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children. 2006; 73 :69–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes PG, Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, Francis DJ, Schatschneider C. An evaluation of two reading interventions derived from diverse models. Reading Research Quarterly. 2005; 40 :148–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathes PG, Fuchs LS. Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 1993; 8 :233–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCardle P, Chhabra V. The voice of evidence in reading research. Brookes Publishing Company; Baltimore, MD: 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster KL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Compton DL. Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children. 2005; 71 :445–463. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miranda A, Villaescusa MI, Vidal-Abarca E. Is attribution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1997; 30 :503–512. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, Clarke P, Marshall CM, Durand M. Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing research. 2004; 47 :199–211. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, Snowling MJ. Beyond phonological skills: broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading. 2004; 27 (4):342–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics . National assessment of educational progress. U.S. Department of Education; Washington, DC: 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Reading Panel . Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DC: 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor RE, Bell KM, Harty KR, Larkin LK, Sackor SM, Zigmond N. Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2002; 94 :474–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor RE, White A, Swanson HL. Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children. 2007; 74 :31–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rich RZ, Blake S. Collaborating for autonomy: Inducing strategic behaviors in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 1994; 5 :359–372. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scammacca N, Roberts G, Vaughn S, Edmonds M, Wexler J, Reutebuch CK, et al. Intervention for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implication for practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; Portsmouth, NH: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :153–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson HL, Hoskyn M, Lee C. Interventions for students with learning disabilities. Guilford; New York: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Takala M. The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in mainstream and special (SLI) education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2006; 50 :559–576. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor LK, Alber SR, Walker DW. The comparative effects of a modified self-questioning strategy and story mapping on the reading comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2002; 11 :69–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thaler V, Ebner EM, Wimmer H, Landerl K. Training reading fluency in dysfluent readers with high reading accuracy: Word specific effects but low transfer to untrained words. Annals of Dyslexia. 2004; 54 :89–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ, Wickstrom K, Jones K. Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2006; 21 :89–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK. Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2000; 15 :55–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KKS, Conway T. Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2001; 34 :33–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Houston DD, Rissman LM, Decker SM, Roberts G, Vaughn S, et al. Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; Portsmouth, NH: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Rose E, Lindamood P, Conway T, et al. Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999; 91 :579–593. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Kim A, Sloan CVM, Hughes MT, Elbaum B, Sridhar D. Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: A synthesis of group design studies. Remedial and Special Education. 2003; 24 :2–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, et al. Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early interventions as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1996; 88 :601–638. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright M, Mullan F. Dyslexia and the phono-graphix reading programme. Support for Learning. 2006; 21 :77–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xin JF, Rieth H. Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual. 2001; 12 :87–103. [ Google Scholar ]

Enhancing Outcomes for Struggling Adolescent Readers

On this page:, the reading skills of adolescent readers, a theory of adolescent reading: a simple view of a complex process, defining features of effective programs for struggling adolescent readers, final comments, introduction.

“There is a need for a solid understanding of basic skills. I have never met the guy who doesn’t know how to read and do math who created software.” —Bill Gates

This statement highlights the challenges and educational needs of individuals preparing to enter and successfully compete in the global economy described by Thomas Friedman (2005) in his book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century . According to Friedman, our world has become flattened because the Internet has enabled people, regardless of their location or status in life, to share their ideas and engage others on a playing field that has been leveled (flattened) by innovations associated with technology. Foundational to ensuring that the Western world can successfully respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by a flat world is its ability to develop students who have the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in a global economy. The ability to read, comprehend, and apply knowledge to novel learning situations is essential. In fact, if individuals cannot read well, much knowledge will be beyond them (Adelman, 2006).

During the past few years, a spate of reports detailing the challenges facing secondary school have been released (e.g., Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Kamil, 2003; National Governors Association, 2005). Running throughout most of these reports is a dual challenge for secondary teachers and administers. Namely, raise standards so graduates of secondary schools are better able to compete in the world economy and close the achievement gap for the growing number of struggling adolescent learners who do not possess sufficient literacy and numeracy skills to respond to demanding course requirements.

More specifically, as students leave high school during the first decade of the 21st century, they must be prepared to compete for jobs that require markedly different skill sets than most currently possess. In the last quarter century, the economy could provide students who lacked a high school diploma with relatively well-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. However, between 2000-2010 more than two thirds of all jobs will require some postsecondary education (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2003). The jobs requiring the most education and offering the highest pay are the fastest growing. In light of these trends, it is important for students to be taking rigorous classes that prepare them to enter into and successfully compete in this new environment. In light of limited time and financial resources, high schools can’t afford to deal with the large numbers of students who arrive in the 9th grade without the fundamental literacy skills and at the same time raise standards. In short, the likelihood of successfully “raising the bar” for high school graduates is extremely remote unless a way is found to “raise the floor” for the large number of middle-school students who are entering high school lacking the necessary literacy skills. It is logical that the time and place to build a strong literacy foundation so students can benefit fully from a challenging high school curriculum is in the late elementary and middle school years (Deshler, 2006).

The magnitude of the challenge that high school educators face if the achievement gap is not closed prior to students becoming 9th graders is underscored by data recently collected on a large sample of high school freshmen. A descriptive study was conducted with 346 adolescent readers in which 83% of the students attended urban schools (Hock, Brasseur, Deshler, Catts, Marquis, 2005). The goal of the study was to develop a profile of the reading component skills adolescents have mastered and those they have not mastered. Adolescents were administered a battery of reading assessments to determine their reading proficiency in rate, accuracy, fluency, comprehension, sight word decoding, word attack, phonemic decoding, vocabulary, motivation for reading, listening comprehension skills.

Findings from the study indicated that struggling adolescent readers (those with an overall reading skill profile at or below the 40th percentile) need intensive word-level interventions in addition to comprehension interventions. These students scored significantly below expectations in decoding, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency and reading comprehension on multiple measures of reading skills. Specifically, they scored at the 1st to 7th percentile in all reading skills measured. In contrast, highly proficient adolescent readers had acquired both word-level and comprehension skills but still needed higher-level reading comprehension instruction. They scored just above average in reading comprehension, which does not make them competitive in a rapidly changing flat world. Thus, it seems likely that in some schools (especially those in inner-city urban areas) large numbers of struggling adolescent readers may require both word-level and comprehension interventions in order to make it over the fourth grade hump (Chall, 1983; Pressley, 2002) and those who have acquired word-level skills would benefit from reading comprehension instruction. The case for balanced reading instruction is strengthened by this initial analysis of the descriptive data set, particularly for adolescents who struggle with reading comprehension.

Performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Learning Proficiency Battery subtests for reading comprehension, listening comprehension, letter/ word identification, word attack, and vocabulary defined the general reading profile of the adolescents assessed in this study. While the reading skills of those students assessed increased from lower levels of proficiency to higher levels as expected, the standard scores of the struggling readers were significantly below expected mean scores, generally by more than one standard deviation. These standard scores place the readers in the 8th to 19th percentile across all reading component skills assessed. Clearly, these students will require a markedly different instructional focus, intensity, and balance than students in the Proficient and higher groups. If proficient reading requires sufficient skill in word level reading, as characterized in the National Reading Panel (2000), these skill deficits must be addressed if reading comprehension achievement gaps are to be significantly narrowed.

To help us understand how to best close the achievement gap that struggling adolescent readers face, it is important to ground the way we conceptualize and offer instruction in a theoretical formulation of the reading process for older students. Over the last 15 years considerable knowledge has been gained about the nature of reading and its development. Much of this work has focused on skilled adult readers or young beginning readers (e.g., Lyon, Alexander,& Yafee, 2004; McCardle & Chhabara, 2004). However, recent efforts have also examined literacy in adolescent populations (Catts et al. 2005). This work has shown that reading involves a complex combination of word recognition and language comprehension abilities. Research indicates that skilled readers are efficient at sight-word recognition and decoding of new words. Such efficiency leads to fluent reading of text-length material and provides the substance for comprehension (Stahl & Hiebert, 2004).

Beyond word reading, skilled readers rely on language and metacognitive skills to derive meaning from text. Walter Kintsch’s Construction-Integration theory of reading provides a useful framework for understanding these comprehension processes. Kintsch argues that skilled readers use their knowledge of word meaning, grammar, and text structure to build an initial understanding of text. This understanding consists of links between words and larger meaningful units (e.g., propositions). It is often incomplete but may be sufficient to enable readers to provide a short retell or answer questions like those found at the end of chapters in textbooks. Kintsch makes a distinction between this type of understanding and the deep understanding that is needed for “learning from text.”

For readers to achieve a deep understanding, the material in a text must be integrated with their prior knowledge and experience with the topic. This integration results in what Kintsch calls a situation model, a mental model of the situation described in the text. This model often goes beyond the verbal domain and may include such components as visual imagery, emotions, or personal experiences. Constructing a situation model may proceed automatically, but often involves conscious, effortful mental activity, much like solving a problem. Skilled readers are strategic. They begin reading with a plan, monitor their understanding, deploy repair strategies when necessary, and critically evaluate text material (Pressley & Hilden, 2005). The resultant situation model is a much deeper understanding of the text. One that allows for true learning to take place such that new knowledge is created and can be assessed easily and used in novel situations.

The above considerations suggest that there may be a number of obstacles to adolescent reading comprehension. First, struggling adolescent readers may lack fluency in word reading. It is often assumed that by adolescence, readers have acquired adult-like decoding and word recognition abilities. However, recent work suggests that many struggling adolescent readers lack sufficient fluency in word recognition and can benefit for intervention targeted at word reading strategies (Hock, et. al, 2005). Second, struggling readers may not have vocabulary, grammar, or text-level language knowledge to form an initial understanding of the text. Such limitations may be the result a lack of language experience (i.e., English as a second language) or a developmental language impairment (August, in press; Catts, et. al, 2005). A further obstacle might be the lack of relevant background knowledge. As noted above, this knowledge is critical in order to build a deep understanding of the text. Adolescents without knowledge of the subject matter would be expected to gain far less from reading a text than those with such knowledge. Finally, an especially likely problem for comprehension is the lack of efficient strategies for relating the text to past knowledge and experience. Adolescents with reading difficulties are frequently reported to lack good reading comprehension strategies (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999, Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000).

The primary and very obvious function of schools is to ensure that all students learn critical skills and content, however, the energies and time of many secondary administrators are devoted to activities other than instruction (e.g., facilities, staffing, scheduling). While these things are necessary, they sometimes end up becoming the primary focus and ends rather than means to ends. Elmore (2005) has stated, “until leaders and teachers relentlessly focus on things that are core to the instructional process, student outcomes will not improve markedly.” In short, the key to transforming students from struggling to competent learners is to put in place programs that bring a “laser-like focus” on teaching and learning (Deshler, 2006). The following are features that should be considered foundational to effective programming for struggling adolescent learners.

A Continuum of Literacy Instruction. Because the literacy needs of struggling adolescent readers are so diverse, the most effective literacy programs are ones that offer instruction at various levels of intensity, are comprehensive, and are well coordinated. For example, some students benefit when teachers use graphic organizers to help them master critical subject matter content; others need learning strategies embedded in content material, explicit strategy instruction, or instruction in basic skills or even the basic language elements that are the foundation of literacy competence. A framework for conceptualizing literacy instruction in secondary school settings, called the Content Literacy Continuum, has been defined by Lenz, Ehren, and Deshler (2005). In essence, this framework posits that some students require more intensive, systematic, explicit instruction of content, strategies, and skills and that there are unique but very important roles for each member of a secondary staff relative to literacy instruction.

A Continuum of Literacy Instruction Level 1: Enhance content instruction (mastery of critical content for all regardless of literacy levels) Level 2: Embedded strategy instruction (routinely weave strategies within and across classes using large group instructional methods) Level 3: Intensive strategy instruction (mastery of specific strategies using intensive explicit instructional sequences) Level 4: Intensive basic skill instruction (mastery of entry level literacy skills at the 4th grade level) Level 5: Therapeutic intervention (mastery of language underpinnings of curriculum content and learning strategies) Tutoring: Strategic Tutoring (extending instructional time through before or after school tutoring)

Instruction that is especially intensive and focused is necessary for students reading several years behind grade level (at or below the 3rd grade level). Classes of no more than 15 students that meet for at least one hour per day are generally required. A highly skilled teacher would use a combination of whole-class and small-group and one-on-one instruction. These classes should have computer technology to provide supported reading practice and quality feedback and error correction. The focus of instruction should be on word recognition, fluency, vocabulary and strategies for encouraging persistence in reading. As students master the basic skills of reading, the instructional focus needs to shift to comprehension strategies with continued emphasis on vocabulary building. Finally, it is important to provide well-supplied classroom libraries of leveled/high-interest materials that capture student interest and increase the amount of reading students do (Torgesen, 2005).

Systems for managing student behavior effectively. The climate that exists within secondary schools needs to be conducive to student learning. Regrettably, it is not unusual for the behavior in classes and commons areas in secondary schools to be unruly and out of control (Public Agenda, 2004). In the absence of effective school-wide and classroom management systems, quality instruction and focused learning cannot occur. Evidenced-based management systems built on the principles of positive behavioral supports have been effective in creating school and classroom climates conducive to learning (e.g, Sprick, 2006) Screening system. A school-wide screening instrument(s) administered to all students as they enter a middle school can be helpful in identifying those students most in need of literacy instruction. Such a screening should provide information on word analysis skills, fluency, and comprehension. With predetermined cut points, these data can be used to assign students to instructional programs best designed to meet their needs.

High-quality teaching practices. Teachers who achieve the greatest gains with students who have literacy deficits are those whose instruction is consistently responsive, systematic, and intensive (Deshler, Schumaker, & Woodruff, 2004). These factors are central to much of what is embodied in effective instruction, regardless of whether a student is being taught subject matter content or a learning strategy or skill to facilitate the learning of subject matter content. Swanson’s (1999) meta-analysis on effective components of explicit cognitive learning strategy instruction (e.g., advance organizer, skill review, demonstration, modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and corrective feedback) underscore some of the defining features of highly effective teaching practices.

Progress monitoring. Remedial education is very costly in economic (e.g., smaller class sizes, highly skilled teachers) and non-economic (e.g., increased sense of hopeless by adolescents who continue to fail) terms. Hence, it is important to carefully monitor how responsive students are being to instruction, and if they are on a proper trajectory toward meeting benchmarks. Adjustments in the instructional program are made in response to the data collected. Monitoring probes in key skill areas should ideally be taken at least four times per year.

Access to engaging, leveled reading materials. Making engaging and leveled reading materials readily available to struggling adolescent readers can help capture and/or reignite their interest in reading. One of the reasons many struggling readers don’t read is because they have little or no interest in the materials available to them to read (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich 2004). Well supplied classroom and/or school libraries are a key feature to increasing the volume of reading that students do and ultimately them becoming independent self motivated readers.

Create a “culture of growth and achievement.” The prevailing culture within a secondary reading classroom should, among other things, focus on: student goal setting, holding students accountable for achieving outcome goals, good habits of learning (e.g., using time wisely, working hard to achieve goals, building reading endurance, etc.), high expectations for each student, and personalized, respectful, caring interactions between teachers and students.

Structures that support instruction. High-quality instruction does not take place in a vacuum. One of the most important roles that school leaders can play is to create the kinds of conditions that enable this to happen. As Elmore (2005) states: “The schools that succeed in changing practice are those that start with the practice and modify school structure to accommodate it” (p. 4). In other words, form should follow function. One of the structures that can promote improved student outcomes are opportunities for teachers to plan together for the purpose of coordinating instruction across classes so critical reading strategies are modeled, prompted, and practice in each class. This coordinated approach to instruction helps to reduce the fragmentary learning that most secondary students experience. Additionally, school administrators can provide leadership in creating decision-making teams (mechanisms that bring teams of 6-8 teachers together to discuss students who are having difficulty meeting standards, identify ways for members of the team to alter their instruction to address identified needs, and review data on student progress), ensure that school schedules are sufficiently flexible to enable students to move seamlessly from one instructional level to the other with ease (see description of the Content Literacy Continuum above). In short, the only way that student learning can become the overriding focus of attention is if teachers have the necessary instructional supports to teach students and to work with other teachers to address each student’s needs.

High-quality professional development. The degree to which a school staff is successful in improving outcomes for students is directly tied to the capacity of members of that staff to effectively teach research-based practices with fidelity. This capacity is developed through a program of high quality professional development. High quality professional development programs are defined, among other things by being coordinated, addressing major learning needs of students, being grounded in validated principles of adult learning, and directly linked to the accountability system for teachers and administrators. While districts generally make substantial annual investments in professional development, a recent study has shown that many of these funds are not clearly tied to directly improving student outcomes and are not a part of the accountability system in the district (Deninger, Curtis, & McIntyre, 2005).

Instructional coaching. When properly used, instructional coaches serve as central partners in the instructional change process. Their sole role should be to assist teachers improve the quality of their instruction so student outcomes are directly improved. There is evidence, however, that instructional coaches often end up being used to perform non-instructional roles such as overseeing the school’s state assessment program or administrative support duties for the principal (Knight, in press). Working one-on-one with teachers, instructional coaches can make it easier to adopt instructional methods that make a difference in student outcomes. They can also serve as members of teacher decision-making teams to facilitate instruction on targeted student benchmarks (Knight, in press).

An interesting metric is being used by some secondary schools to determine the likelihood that a student will graduate from high school. It is called the “on-track indicator” (Allensworth & Easton, 2005). This research has shown that students who remain on track (that is, earn at least five credits and get no more than one semester F in their freshman year) are three and one-half times as likely to graduate from high school than students who do not stay on track. This study underscores how devastating freshman-year failure can be. Namely, just one semester F decreases the likelihood of graduating from 83% to 60%; a second semester F decreases the likelihood to 44%; and an alarming 31% of students with three semester F’s graduate from high school.

These data highlight the vital importance of making certain that middle school students enter high school prepared for the rigorous course demands that they will face. The key to transforming students from struggling to competent learners is to put in place programs that are grounded in sound learning theory and embody the features described above that bring a “laser-like focus” to teaching and learning.

Liked it? Share it!

Aaron, P.G., Joshi, M., Williams, K.A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 32(2),120-37.

Adams, M.J., Treiman, R. & Pressley, M. (1996). "Reading, writing and literacy". In I. Sigel, A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 4: Child

Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Alliance for Excellent Education (2004). Reading Next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Author.

Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roos of K- 12 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G.

Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Denton, K., West, J., and Waltston, J. (2003). Young children’s achievement and classroom experiences: Special Analysis on the Condition of Education.Washington, D.C.:National Center for Educational Statistics.

Duncan, G. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (eds) (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Eisner,W.E. and Wallance, E. (eds) (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, Calif.:McCutchan.

Frede, E. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for children in poverty. In W.S. Earnett and S.S. Boocock (eds), Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long-term outcomes, p. 77-98. New York:State University of New York Press.

Hart, B. and Risley, T. (2003). “The Early Catastrophe,” American Educator, 27, 4, 6-9. Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (eds) (1998). The Black-White Best Score Gap.Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Lee, V. and Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate.Washington, D.C.:Economic Policy Institute.

Lomax, R. and McGee, L. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of work reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 237-256.

McCardle, P. and Chhabra, V. (eds) (2004). The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Susan B. Neuman is professor of educational studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, specializing in early literacy development. Her research and teaching interest include early childhood policy, curriculum, and early reading instruction. Baltimore:Brookes.

National Reading Panel Report (2000). Teaching children to read.Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Child Health and Development.

Neuman, S.B. and Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 95-122.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Seppanen, P.S., Godon, K., and Metzger, J. (1993). Observational study of Chapter 1: Funded early childhood programs. (Final Report, Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education.

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

References for 'Neglected Knowledge: The Facts' section

Adams, M. J. (2005). “Comment,” in Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2005, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Duke, N. K. (2000). “3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational text in first grade,” Reading Research Quarterly, 35, p. 202-224. Education Week (2006). “Quality Counts at 10: A Decade of Standards-Based Reform,” Education Week, 25(17).

Flood, J. and Lapp, D. (1986). “Types of Texts: The match between what students read in basals and what they encounter in tests,” Reading Research Quarterly, 21, p. 284-297.

Moss, B. and Newton, E. (2002). “An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers,” Reading Psychology, 23, p. 1-13.

Palincsar, A. S and Duke, N. K. (2004). “The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement,” The Elementary School Journal, 105(2), p. 183-197.

Rose, L. C. and Gallup, A. M. (2005). “The 37th Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools,” Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), p. 41-57.

Rothman, R. (2005). “Is history…history?” Harvard Education Letter, November/December.

Smith, B. D. (1991). A descriptive analysis of the content in three basal readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona.

Walsh, K. (2003). “Basal readers: The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels comprehension,” American Educator, Spring, p. 24-27.

Visit our sister websites:

Reading rockets launching young readers (opens in a new window), start with a book read. explore. learn (opens in a new window), colorín colorado helping ells succeed (opens in a new window), ld online all about learning disabilities (opens in a new window), reading universe all about teaching reading and writing (opens in a new window).

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

ACTION RESEARCH IN READING

Related Papers

Gabriel Ankrah

The study was undertaken to unearth and implore the necessary strategies to blend five and six letters to form a meaningful word. The research instrument used was test items. All the pupils in the class took the same test thus, pre-test. It was used to gather data baseline information before the research was carried out on them. Biographic data of their responses were analyzed, discussed and the findings brought to the face. The study revealed the areas in which the pupils falter when reading and the appropriate techniques and strategies were used to control its occurrence. Based on the findings, the researcher gave some recommendations. Teachers should have mastery over the subject matter and also use the appropriate methods in the teaching of the topic. Again, they should make their lessons child centered to avoid scaring the pupils off. The study further opens the door for more research into pupil&#39;s inability to blend five and six letters to form meaningful words.

Proceedings: International Conference Sang Guru 2 The Praise for and Criticism of Teaching and education, Linguistics, and Literature in the Modern Era, Unipress Unesa: Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Fauris Zuhri

Abstract: This paper discusses reading difficulties at word level in English Department of State University of Surabaya. It explains the identification of words in literal reading class. Literal reading involves two main processes – identifying words and comprehending connected them in texts. Phonological and phonic skills provide the foundation for word identification. To understand a text, a reader must be able to identify words rapidly, know the meaning of almost all of the words, and be able to combine sequential units of meaning into a coherent message. The learners need to be taught early, and by direct methods. Sight vocabulary is essential that learners build a memory store of words they can recognise instantly without the need for decoding. Proficiency in reading basically involves gaining competence in two separate but complementary processes, namely word identification (decoding) and linguistic comprehension. But, it is recognised that some students who develop adequate word-reading ability and fluency still have difficulty understanding what they are reading, particularly when faced with the expository style of writing used within many school textbooks. To become competent readers, students need to learn effective strategies for identifying all words in print and for comprehending text. Literacy instruction must therefore include explicit teaching and practice in these essential strategies to enable all learners to read fluently, confidently and with understanding. Makalah ini membahas kesulitan membaca pada level kata di Jurusan Bahasa Inggris Unesa Surabaya. Untuk itu makalah ini menjelaskan pengidentifikasian kata di mata kuliah Literal Reading. Literal Reading terdiri dari dua proses utama – mengidentifikasi kata dan memahami secara komprehensif hubungan kata di dalam teks. Keterampilan fonologi dan fonem menjadi dasar pengidentifikasian kata. Supaya bisa memahami teks, pembaca harus mempunyai kemampuan mengidentifikasi kata dengan cepat, mengetahui arti hampir semua kata-kata, dan mampu menggabungkan arti kata-kata secara runtut menjadi satu pesan yang koheren. Sedari awal mahasiswa perlu diajar dengan menggunakan metode langsung. Mencermati kosakata merupakan hal yang esensial sehingga mahasiswa mempunyai wadah memori kosakata yang dapat diingat secara cepat tanpa perlu mengidentifikasi lagi kosata tersebut. Profisiensi membaca menjadi dasar untuk memperoleh dua kompetensi yang berbeda tetapi dalam proses saling melengkapi, yaitu: pengidentifikasian kata dan pemahaman linguistik. Akan tetapi, hal yang perlu diingat bahwa beberapa mahasiswa yang belajar meningkatkan kemampuan dan kelancaran membaca pada level kata secara memadai masih menemui kesulitan memahaminya ketika mereka sedang membaca, khususnya ketika mereka membaca jenis teks eksposisi yang banyak ditemui di buku-buku teks sekolah/perguruan tinggi. Supaya menjadi pemabaca yang kompeten, mahasiswa perlu mempelajari strategi efektif untuk mengidentifikasi semua kata yang ada di bacaan dan juga memahami secara komprehensif teks. Oleh karena itu, pembelajaran literasi harus menyertakan secara eksplisit pengajaran tersebut dan mempraktekkan jenis-jenis strategi esensial supaya semua mahasiswa mampu membaca dengan lancar, yakin dan disertai dengan pemahaman komprehensif. Key words: reading difficulty, word level, and literal reading in English Department.

Manit Bacate

Reading performance has been the problem of most schools affecting the students’ academic achievement results. Using the non-equivalent pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design, this study was conducted in order to determine the effects of the remedial reading program on the oral and silent reading skills of Grade VII students by comparing the progress of the experimental group using the Science Research Associates (SRA) materials and the control group using the Developing Reading Comprehension Skills materials, donated books of Former Senator Letecia Ramos Shahani. The students’ profile in terms of age, sex, general point average in Grade VI, and the grade in English were used as intervening variables to determine the significant relationship between reading performance of the experimental and control groups in the silent reading and oral reading skills. To determine the significant relationship and difference between the performance of the experimental and control groups in the oral and silent reading, this study utilized the pretest and posttest mean scores of the silent and oral reading tests. The posttest results exhibited an increase in the mean scores of the oral and silent reading tests. Decoding accuracy and automaticity showed a significant relationship between the pretest and the posttest results in the grade point average in Grade VI, which suggests that the students’ performance is closely related to their grade in Grade VI. All the skills in oral reading are found to have high significant difference except for the experimental group’s comprehension which is significant. The results suggest further that the study skills lag behind other skills in silent reading such as vocabulary and comprehension, implying that students with learning and behavior problems have difficulty in learning these skills. Therefore, appropriate research on study skills should be conducted to help augment the learning skills of students. Both the SRA and Developing Reading Comprehension Skills materials were effective in the development of the reading skills of the students.

Habtamu Walga

The aim of this study was to find out the factors that affect students' reading speed and comprehension that are related to students, teachers, and school with particular reference to Grade Nine Manasibu Secondary of West Wallagga Zone, Oromia. A descriptive survey of quantitative and qualitative data analysis method was employed to carry out this study. 97 students and 12 teachers were selected using purposive and simple random sampling techniques. The data were gathered through questionnaires, interview and classroom observation. The questionnaires were used to explore the teachers', students' and school related constraints with respect to the learning and teaching of reading speed and comprehension skills. The interview and classroom observation supplemented the data obtained through the questionnaires. Numbers and percentages were used to analyze the collected data. The result of the study revealed that the teachers rarely played their roles to improve the students' reading speed and comprehension in the classroom reading due to lack of awareness. Besides, the main factors students' related factors that affect the students' reading speed and comprehension skills in the target grade level were such as carelessness, negative attitudes toward reading, poor background knowledge, lack of knowledge of using appropriate reading strategies to the purpose of the reading, lack of practice and low participation in classroom reading. The finding also revealed the problem related to school like less orientedness to the reading skills, lack of finance, lack of awareness, large number students in each class, unsuitability of seating arrangements to pair and group works and lack of access to teaching aids. Finally, on the basis of the findings, it was recommended that in order to improve students' reading speed and comprehension, above all, the students have to practice reading in the target language by reading in the library and at their homes and by participating activities in the classroom. To this end, teachers also ought to play prominent roles to improve the students' reading speed and comprehension. That is, they should use modern methodologies which give room for improvement of reading speed and comprehension and the students have to play their appropriate roles in doing against problems that hindered students' learning of reading skills. Besides, the concerned bodies need to deal with the problem of large class size and instructional materials related factors to alleviate the problem.

Justice Agyei Ampofo

edna albaran

ABSTRACT 1. Title: ENHANCING ORAL READING COMPETENCE OF GRADE SIX PUPILS THROUGH REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION IN COASTAL SCHOOLS OF ALUBIJID DISTRICT, DIVISION OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL SY 2017-2018 2. Author: ALBARAN EDNA NOB (Last Name) (First Name) (Middle Name) 3. Type of Document : Action Research 4. Type of Publication : Published 5. Key Words: Oral Reading Enhancement 6. Abstract 6.1 Summary This study attempted to enhance the Oral Reading Competence of Grade Six pupil respondents through Remedial Instruction in Coastal Schools of Alubijid District, Division of Misamis Oriental, S.Y. 2017-2018. Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions: 1. What is the Oral Reading Competence of the Grade Six pupil respondents after conducting Two Months Remedial Reading Instruction 1.1 Repetition Approach: Reading Aloud with Expression 1.2 Guided Repeated Oral reading? 2. What is the profile of the Grade Six pupil respondents considering the following: 2.1 sex 2.2 attitude towards Oral reading 2.3 teacher traits 2.4 teaching methodology 2.5 exposure to reading materials? 3. What is the Oral Reading Competence in English of the Grade Six pupil respondents on the following: 3.1 pronunciation 3.2 vocabulary 3.3 grammar 3.4 fluency 3.5 comprehension; and 3.6 overall results on Enhancement Oral reading skills after remedial instruction? Research Methodology This study employed the descriptive research method which involved twelve ((12) respondents in the coastal schools of Alubijid District, Division of Misamis Oriental. The respondents were non-readers and very slow readers based on the oral reading results of Phil-IRI S.Y. 2017-2018. The number of samples were identified through proportional allocation sampling design. The research instruments were used to gather data namely: a questionnaire to determine the pupil’s sex, exposure to reading materials the instructional materials used to conduct remedial reading, the reading comprehension skills test in attitude towards oral reading, the teacher traits and teaching methodology. The statistical tool was used to analyze the data gathered: descriptive statistics such as means, percentages and standard deviation to describe the proficiency level. The researcher with the help of the English Teachers, personally conducted he oral remedial instruction and administered the questionnaire Findings The following are the salient findings of the study: 1. There were twelve (12) respondents, involving 10 males and 2 females. On the Repetition Approach: Reading Aloud with Expression, the respondents with poor to fair had mean rating of fair oral reading competence, the respondents had also fair rating in guided Repeated Oral Reading. 2. In general, the findings disclosed that the Grade Six pupil respondents in coastal schools of Alubijid District, Division of Misamis Oriental, S.Y. 2017-2018 had barely fair oral reading competence after conducting two months intensive remedial instruction. The oral reading competence of the respondents was increased/improved from non-reader to fair reader (instructional level). 3. The pupil respondents had obtained fair rating in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and fluency. The respondents’ weakest area is comprehension. Conclusions Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The Grade Six pupil respondents in Coastal Schools of Alubijid District, Division of Misamis Oriental, in the School Year 2017-2018had fair performance in Oral reading competence after the conduct of two months intensive remedial instruction. It implies that they had improved their oral reading skills from non-reader to fair reader level. 2. The following independent variables in this study such as sex, attitude towards oral reading, teacher traits, teacher methodology and exposure to reading materials, all play vital roles in enhancing the pupils’ oral reading competence. 3. Although the overall performance of the respondents was fair, they performed very satisfactory in pronunciation. The respondents’ weakest area is in comprehension, followed by fluency, grammar, and vocabulary. It implies that majority of the respondents were able to read the given statements but did not understand what is being read. Recommendations In the light of the findings revealed in the study, the researcher set forth the following recommendations: 1. Pupils’ attitude towards oral reading English came out an important factor in the pupils’ oral reading competence/skills. The teacher should capitalize on this by motivating the children to develop their interest in reading. 2. The teacher should conduct regular remedial instruction to the non-readers from Grades I to VI to improve their oral reading skills using the Repetition Approach: Reading Aloud with Expression and Guided Repeated Oral Reading Strategies. Furthermore, the teacher should put up a “Learners’ Kiosk” inside the classroom with reading facilities such as reference books, supplementary books, magazines, and periodicals, to be ready in times the pupils need them. This would encourage the pupils to read during their vacant periods and help develop positive attitude towards oral reading. 3. Pupils must answer in complete sentences to develop fluency, grammar, and comprehension. 4. The pupils who are already advanced in reading may be properly motivated to help their classmates who are not good in oral reading. This peer activity will enhance the oral reading development of the slow learners. 5. Future researchers should look into the oral reading competence skills of pupils in other districts to find out their status so that they can be properly guided in reading, which is very important in their academic performance.

European Journal of Educational Research

hayati akyol

Maripaz Panopio

RADHIKA SHARMA

This content emphasizes the significance of English as a global language and a tool for learning across various domains. It outlines the four essential language skills – listening, speaking, reading, and writing – and their role in effective communication. The importance of early reading education is highlighted, discussing its benefits in fostering memory, strengthening the brain, and enhancing analytical abilities. The text also emphasizes the role of reading in introducing students to diverse cultures and promoting independence and confidence. The theoretical background delves into reading challenges and categorizes them into specific word reading challenges (SWRD), specific reading comprehension challenges (SRCD), and mixed reading challenges (MRD). The content further discusses the methodology of identifying and addressing these challenges, emphasizing the need for systematic phonics support and intervention. The reflection section offers insights into observed improvements and challenges faced during the implementation of reading strategies. Recommendations for improving reading skills include building vocabulary, using online resources, employing visual aids, and encouraging critical thinking. The importance of summarizing techniques and question-answer scenarios is underscored, with a focus on enhancing students' comprehension and analytical abilities. The abstract concludes with a call for active engagement in teaching methods that foster critical thinking and creativity in students.

RELATED PAPERS

The Journal of Chemical Physics

Kevin Lehmann

Erika Neeft

Giornata di studi - Venice Biennale 2019. The artist’s practices International conference

Ambra Cascone

Pilar Martino Alba

Información Tecnológica

Valentina F Osorio

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

iago villamil cajoto

Jubaedah : Jurnal Pengabdian dan Edukasi Sekolah (Indonesian Journal of Community Services and School Education)

surya indrawan

The Open Ophthalmology Journal

Revista Del Colegio De Medicos Veterinarios Del Estado Lara

Nelson Perez

Transportation Research Procedia

Loredana Zani

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research

Afraa Hassan

Haleema Sadia

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Waqas Javed

RACE - Revista de Administração, Contabilidade e Economia

Samantha Luiza de Souza Broman

Pontos de Interrogação — Revista de Crítica Cultural

Carlos Magno Gomes

Innovazione e diritto

Olina Capolino

Communist and Post-Communist Studies

Natalija Bogdanov

Toxicology Letters

Giuliano Zabucchi

Correlation between platelet monoamine oxidase activity and the strength of a visual illusion

Tibor Magos

Wafaa El Beih

Brazilian Journal of Oceanography

Subha Chakraborty

Charles Samuel

Behavioural Brain Research

Klaus Blischke

hjhds jyuttgf

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Preparing for Action Research in the Classroom: Practical Issues

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What sort of considerations are necessary to take action in your educational context?
• How do you facilitate an action plan without disrupting your teaching?
• How do you respond when the unplanned happens during data collection?

An action research project is a practical endeavor that will ultimately be shaped by your educational context and practice. Now that you have developed a literature review, you are ready to revise your initial plans and begin to plan your project. This chapter will provide some advice about your considerations when undertaking an action research project in your classroom.

Maintain Focus

Hopefully, you found a lot a research on your topic. If so, you will now have a better understanding of how it fits into your area and field of educational research. Even though the topic and area you are researching may not be small, your study itself should clearly focus on one aspect of the topic in your classroom. It is important to maintain clarity about what you are investigating because a lot will be going on simultaneously during the research process and you do not want to spend precious time on erroneous aspects that are irrelevant to your research.

Even though you may view your practice as research, and vice versa, you might want to consider your research project as a projection or megaphone for your work that will bring attention to the small decisions that make a difference in your educational context. From experience, our concern is that you will find that researching one aspect of your practice will reveal other interconnected aspects that you may find interesting, and you will disorient yourself researching in a confluence of interests, commitments, and purposes. We simply want to emphasize – don’t try to research everything at once. Stay focused on your topic, and focus on exploring it in depth, instead of its many related aspects. Once you feel you have made progress in one aspect, you can then progress to other related areas, as new research projects that continue the research cycle.

Identify a Clear Research Question

Your literature review should have exposed you to an array of research questions related to your topic. More importantly, your review should have helped identify which research questions we have addressed as a field, and which ones still need to be addressed . More than likely your research questions will resemble ones from your literature review, while also being distinguishable based upon your own educational context and the unexplored areas of research on your topic.

Regardless of how your research question took shape, it is important to be clear about what you are researching in your educational context. Action research questions typically begin in ways related to “How does … ?” or “How do I/we … ?”, for example:

Research Question Examples

• How does a semi-structured morning meeting improve my classroom community?
• How does historical fiction help students think about people’s agency in the past?
• How do I improve student punctuation use through acting out sentences?
• How do we increase student responsibility for their own learning as a team of teachers?

I particularly favor questions with I or we, because they emphasize that you, the actor and researcher, will be clearly taking action to improve your practice. While this may seem rather easy, you need to be aware of asking the right kind of question. One issue is asking a too pointed and closed question that limits the possibility for analysis. These questions tend to rely on quantitative answers, or yes/no answers. For example, “How many students got a 90% or higher on the exam, after reviewing the material three times?

Another issue is asking a question that is too broad, or that considers too many variables. For example, “How does room temperature affect students’ time-on-task?” These are obviously researchable questions, but the aim is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables that has little or no value to your daily practice.

I also want to point out that your research question will potentially change as the research develops. If you consider the question:

As you do an activity, you may find that students are more comfortable and engaged by acting sentences out in small groups, instead of the whole class. Therefore, your question may shift to:

• How do I improve student punctuation use through acting out sentences, in small groups ?

By simply engaging in the research process and asking questions, you will open your thinking to new possibilities and you will develop new understandings about yourself and the problematic aspects of your educational context.

Understand Your Capabilities and Know that Change Happens Slowly

Similar to your research question, it is important to have a clear and realistic understanding of what is possible to research in your specific educational context. For example, would you be able to address unsatisfactory structures (policies and systems) within your educational context? Probably not immediately, but over time you potentially could. It is much more feasible to think of change happening in smaller increments, from within your own classroom or context, with you as one change agent. For example, you might find it particularly problematic that your school or district places a heavy emphasis on traditional grades, believing that these grades are often not reflective of the skills students have or have not mastered. Instead of attempting to research grading practices across your school or district, your research might instead focus on determining how to provide more meaningful feedback to students and parents about progress in your course. While this project identifies and addresses a structural issue that is part of your school and district context, to keep things manageable, your research project would focus the outcomes on your classroom. The more research you do related to the structure of your educational context the more likely modifications will emerge. The more you understand these modifications in relation to the structural issues you identify within your own context, the more you can influence others by sharing your work and enabling others to understand the modification and address structural issues within their contexts. Throughout your project, you might determine that modifying your grades to be standards-based is more effective than traditional grades, and in turn, that sharing your research outcomes with colleagues at an in-service presentation prompts many to adopt a similar model in their own classrooms. It can be defeating to expect the world to change immediately, but you can provide the spark that ignites coordinated changes. In this way, action research is a powerful methodology for enacting social change. Action research enables individuals to change their own lives, while linking communities of like-minded practitioners who work towards action.

Plan Thoughtfully

Planning thoughtfully involves having a path in mind, but not necessarily having specific objectives. Due to your experience with students and your educational context, the research process will often develop in ways as you expected, but at times it may develop a little differently, which may require you to shift the research focus and change your research question. I will suggest a couple methods to help facilitate this potential shift. First, you may want to develop criteria for gauging the effectiveness of your research process. You may need to refine and modify your criteria and your thinking as you go. For example, we often ask ourselves if action research is encouraging depth of analysis beyond my typical daily pedagogical reflection. You can think about this as you are developing data collection methods and even when you are collecting data. The key distinction is whether the data you will be collecting allows for nuance among the participants or variables. This does not mean that you will have nuance, but it should allow for the possibility. Second, criteria are shaped by our values and develop into standards of judgement. If we identify criteria such as teacher empowerment, then we will use that standard to think about the action contained in our research process. Our values inform our work; therefore, our work should be judged in relation to the relevance of our values in our pedagogy and practice.

Does Your Timeline Work?

While action research is situated in the temporal span that is your life, your research project is short-term, bounded, and related to the socially mediated practices within your educational context. The timeline is important for bounding, or setting limits to your research project, while also making sure you provide the right amount of time for the data to emerge from the process.

For example, if you are thinking about examining the use of math diaries in your classroom, you probably do not want to look at a whole semester of entries because that would be a lot of data, with entries related to a wide range of topics. This would create a huge data analysis endeavor. Therefore, you may want to look at entries from one chapter or unit of study. Also, in terms of timelines, you want to make sure participants have enough time to develop the data you collect. Using the same math example, you would probably want students to have plenty of time to write in the journals, and also space out the entries over the span of the chapter or unit.

In relation to the examples, we think it is an important mind shift to not think of research timelines in terms of deadlines. It is vitally important to provide time and space for the data to emerge from the participants. Therefore, it would be potentially counterproductive to rush a 50-minute data collection into 20 minutes – like all good educators, be flexible in the research process.

Involve Others

It is important to not isolate yourself when doing research. Many educators are already isolated when it comes to practice in their classroom. The research process should be an opportunity to engage with colleagues and open up your classroom to discuss issues that are potentially impacting your entire educational context. Think about the following relationships:

Research participants

You may invite a variety of individuals in your educational context, many with whom you are in a shared situation (e.g. colleagues, administrators). These participants may be part of a collaborative study, they may simply help you develop data collection instruments or intervention items, or they may help to analyze and make sense of the data. While the primary research focus will be you and your learning, you will also appreciate how your learning is potentially influencing the quality of others’ learning.

We always tell educators to be public about your research, or anything exciting that is happening in your educational context, for that matter. In terms of research, you do not want it to seem mysterious to any stakeholder in the educational context. Invite others to visit your setting and observe your research process, and then ask for their formal feedback. Inviting others to your classroom will engage and connect you with other stakeholders, while also showing that your research was established in an ethic of respect for multiple perspectives.

Critical friends or validators

Using critical friends is one way to involve colleagues and also validate your findings and conclusions. While your positionality will shape the research process and subsequently your interpretations of the data, it is important to make sure that others see similar logic in your process and conclusions. Critical friends or validators provide some level of certification that the frameworks you use to develop your research project and make sense of your data are appropriate for your educational context. Your critical friends and validators’ suggestions will be useful if you develop a report or share your findings, but most importantly will provide you confidence moving forward.

Potential researchers

As an educational researcher, you are involved in ongoing improvement plans and district or systemic change. The flexibility of action research allows it to be used in a variety of ways, and your initial research can spark others in your context to engage in research either individually for their own purposes, or collaboratively as a grade level, team, or school. Collaborative inquiry with other educators is an emerging form of professional learning and development for schools with school improvement plans. While they call it collaborative inquiry, these schools are often using an action research model. It is good to think of all of your colleagues as potential research collaborators in the future.

Prioritize Ethical Practice

Try to always be cognizant of your own positionality during the action research process, its relation to your educational context, and any associated power relation to your positionality. Furthermore, you want to make sure that you are not coercing or engaging participants into harmful practices. While this may seem obvious, you may not even realize you are harming your participants because you believe the action is necessary for the research process.

For example, commonly teachers want to try out an intervention that will potentially positively impact their students. When the teacher sets up the action research study, they may have a control group and an experimental group. There is potential to impair the learning of one of these groups if the intervention is either highly impactful or exceedingly worse than the typical instruction. Therefore, teachers can sometimes overlook the potential harm to students in pursuing an experimental method of exploring an intervention.

If you are working with a university researcher, ethical concerns will be covered by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). If not, your school or district may have a process or form that you would need to complete, so it would beneficial to check your district policies before starting. Other widely accepted aspects of doing ethically informed research, include:

Confirm Awareness of Study and Negotiate Access – with authorities, participants and parents, guardians, caregivers and supervisors (with IRB this is done with Informed Consent).

• Promise to Uphold Confidentiality – Uphold confidentiality, to your fullest ability, to protect information, identity and data. You can identify people if they indicate they want to be recognized for their contributions.
• Ensure participants’ rights to withdraw from the study at any point .
• Make sure data is secured, either on password protected computer or lock drawer .

Prepare to Problematize your Thinking

Educational researchers who are more philosophically-natured emphasize that research is not about finding solutions, but instead is about creating and asking new and more precise questions. This is represented in the action research process shown in the diagrams in Chapter 1, as Collingwood (1939) notes the aim in human interaction is always to keep the conversation open, while Edward Said (1997) emphasized that there is no end because whatever we consider an end is actually the beginning of something entirely new. These reflections have perspective in evaluating the quality in research and signifying what is “good” in “good pedagogy” and “good research”. If we consider that action research is about studying and reflecting on one’s learning and how that learning influences practice to improve it, there is nothing to stop your line of inquiry as long as you relate it to improving practice. This is why it is necessary to problematize and scrutinize our practices.

Ethical Dilemmas for Educator-Researchers

Classroom teachers are increasingly expected to demonstrate a disposition of reflection and inquiry into their own practice. Many advocate for schools to become research centers, and to produce their own research studies, which is an important advancement in acknowledging and addressing the complexity in today’s schools. When schools conduct their own research studies without outside involvement, they bypass outside controls over their studies. Schools shift power away from the oversight of outside experts and ethical research responsibilities are shifted to those conducting the formal research within their educational context. Ethics firmly grounded and established in school policies and procedures for teaching, becomes multifaceted when teaching practice and research occur simultaneously. When educators conduct research in their classrooms, are they doing so as teachers or as researchers, and if they are researchers, at what point does the teaching role change to research? Although the notion of objectivity is a key element in traditional research paradigms, educator-based research acknowledges a subjective perspective as the educator-researcher is not viewed separately from the research. In action research, unlike traditional research, the educator as researcher gains access to the research site by the nature of the work they are paid and expected to perform. The educator is never detached from the research and remains at the research site both before and after the study. Because studying one’s practice comprises working with other people, ethical deliberations are inevitable. Educator-researchers confront role conflict and ambiguity regarding ethical issues such as informed consent from participants, protecting subjects (students) from harm, and ensuring confidentiality. They must demonstrate a commitment toward fully understanding ethical dilemmas that present themselves within the unique set of circumstances of the educational context. Questions about research ethics can feel exceedingly complex and in specific situations, educator- researchers require guidance from others.

Think about it this way. As a part-time historian and former history teacher I often problematized who we regard as good and bad people in history. I (Clark) grew up minutes from Jesse James’ childhood farm. Jesse James is a well-documented thief, and possibly by today’s standards, a terrorist. He is famous for daylight bank robberies, as well as the sheer number of successful robberies. When Jesse James was assassinated, by a trusted associate none-the-less, his body travelled the country for people to see, while his assailant and assailant’s brother reenacted the assassination over 1,200 times in theaters across the country. Still today in my hometown, they reenact Jesse James’ daylight bank robbery each year at the Fall Festival, immortalizing this thief and terrorist from our past. This demonstrates how some people saw him as somewhat of hero, or champion of some sort of resistance, both historically and in the present. I find this curious and ripe for further inquiry, but primarily it is problematic for how we think about people as good or bad in the past. Whatever we may individually or collectively think about Jesse James as a “good” or “bad” person in history, it is vitally important to problematize our thinking about him. Talking about Jesse James may seem strange, but it is relevant to the field of action research. If we tell people that we are engaging in important and “good” actions, we should be prepared to justify why it is “good” and provide a theoretical, epistemological, or ontological rationale if possible. Experience is never enough, you need to justify why you act in certain ways and not others, and this includes thinking critically about your own thinking.

Educators who view inquiry and research as a facet of their professional identity must think critically about how to design and conduct research in educational settings to address respect, justice, and beneficence to minimize harm to participants. This chapter emphasized the due diligence involved in ethically planning the collection of data, and in considering the challenges faced by educator-researchers in educational contexts.

Planning Action

After the thinking about the considerations above, you are now at the stage of having selected a topic and reflected on different aspects of that topic. You have undertaken a literature review and have done some reading which has enriched your understanding of your topic. As a result of your reading and further thinking, you may have changed or fine-tuned the topic you are exploring. Now it is time for action. In the last section of this chapter, we will address some practical issues of carrying out action research, drawing on both personal experiences of supervising educator-researchers in different settings and from reading and hearing about action research projects carried out by other researchers.

Engaging in an action research can be a rewarding experience, but a beneficial action research project does not happen by accident – it requires careful planning, a flexible approach, and continuous educator-researcher reflection. Although action research does not have to go through a pre-determined set of steps, it is useful here for you to be aware of the progression which we presented in Chapter 2. The sequence of activities we suggested then could be looked on as a checklist for you to consider before planning the practical aspects of your project.

We also want to provide some questions for you to think about as you are about to begin.

• Have you identified a topic for study?
• What is the specific context for the study? (It may be a personal project for you or for a group of researchers of which you are a member.)
• Have you read a sufficient amount of the relevant literature?
• Have you developed your research question(s)?
• Have you assessed the resource needed to complete the research?

As you start your project, it is worth writing down:

• a working title for your project, which you may need to refine later;
• the background of the study , both in terms of your professional context and personal motivation;
• the aims of the project;
• the specific outcomes you are hoping for.

Although most of the models of action research presented in Chapter 1 suggest action taking place in some pre-defined order, they also allow us the possibility of refining our ideas and action in the light of our experiences and reflections. Changes may need to be made in response to your evaluation and your reflections on how the project is progressing. For example, you might have to make adjustments, taking into account the students’ responses, your observations and any observations of your colleagues. All this is very useful and, in fact, it is one of the features that makes action research suitable for educational research.

Action research planning sheet

In the past, we have provided action researchers with the following planning list that incorporates all of these considerations. Again, like we have said many times, this is in no way definitive, or lock-in-step procedure you need to follow, but instead guidance based on our perspective to help you engage in the action research process. The left column is the simplified version, and the right column offers more specific advice if need.

Figure 4.1 Planning Sheet for Action Research

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book