Reading Aides

This category of articles includes studies and reviews pertaining to the use of reading aids, such as text-to-speech software and e-books, both in and outside of the classroom.

Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis

Jun 28, 2013, 12:37 PM
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.

Characteristics

  • Participants in the studies reviewed were middle and high school students that took part in a classroom-wide or school-wide reading intervention program.
  • This study reviewed the effectiveness of four categories of reading instruction: (1) reading curricula, (2) mixed-method models, (3) computer-assisted instruction, and (4) instructional process programs.
  • The reading curricula category included innovative textbooks and paper-based curricula.
  • The mixed-method models combined large and small group instruction, computer-based activities, and other components to provide comprehensive reading instruction.
  • The computer-assisted instruction (CAI) programs used technology to improve students’ reading achievement.
  • The instructional-process category was comprised of programs relying primarily on using professional development to give teachers new strategies to teach reading, such as cooperative learning and strategy instruction.
  • The authors synthesize the achievement outcomes for students in grades 6-12 participating in reading interventions in each of the above categories.

Setting

Method

  • The authors found qualifying articles by conducting an electronic search of reading programs and manually scanning the table of contents of several reading-related journals.
  • The following inclusion criteria were used to find eligible studies: (1) they had to evaluate reading programs for middle and high schools, (2) they had to include students in middle or high school (grades 6 through 12), (3) they had to include a control group, (4) the study had to be available in English, (5) students had to have been randomly assigned to conditions, (6) the study could not have large between-group pretest differences, (7) they had to include quantitative measures of reading performance, (8) the interventions had to last at least 12 weeks, and (9) they had to include at least 15 treatment participants and two teachers.
  • The effect size (i.e., the difference between pre- and post-test scores) for each qualifying study was calculated.

Results

Reading Curricula Interventions
  • No reading curricula interventions met the review’s inclusion criteria.
Mixed-Method Models
  • Two secondary reading programs, READ 180 and Voyager Passport, fit the inclusion criteria for this category.
  • Both programs used small-group instruction, large-group instruction, individualized instruction, and computer-assisted techniques.
  • The mean effect size for READ 180 programs was +0.24 and the mean effect size for Voyager Passport programs was +0.17.
  • Overall, results from the 9 studies evaluating the use of mixed-method interventions with 10,000 students yielded a mean effect size of +0.23.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) Programs
  • Eight programs: Compass Learning/Jostens, CCC Integrated Learning System, Accelerated Reader, and other teacher- and school-created CAI programs, met the inclusion criteria for this review.
  • CAI studies were used with a total of 12,984 students, with a mean effect size of +0.10.
Instructional Process Programs
  • Several instructional process programs met the inclusion criteria, including: Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), Student Team Reading, The Reading Edge, Reading Apprenticeship and Xtreme Reading, The Benchmark Detectives Reading Program, Strategy Intervention Model, and Talent Development High School and Middle School. 
  • Across 15 studies, providing reading interventions to 15,000 students, the mean effect size was +0.21.
  • Within this category, 7 studies evaluated cooperative learning programs; these programs had a mean effect size of +0.28.
  • Given that the studies demonstrating moderate evidence of effectiveness typically have effect sizes of +0.20 to +0.35, the mixed-methods and instructional process programs appeared to have moderate effects on students’ reading achievement.
  • No studies yielded effect sizes in the strong evidence of effectiveness category; however, four programs met the criteria for moderate evidence of effectiveness: Reading Edge and Students Team Reading (cooperative learning programs), Read 180 (a mixed-method program), and Compass Learning/Jostens (a CAI program).
Categories:
  • Reading
Tags:

Computer Assisted Instruction

Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis

Jun 28, 2013, 12:37 PM
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.

Characteristics

  • Participants in the studies reviewed were middle and high school students that took part in a classroom-wide or school-wide reading intervention program.
  • This study reviewed the effectiveness of four categories of reading instruction: (1) reading curricula, (2) mixed-method models, (3) computer-assisted instruction, and (4) instructional process programs.
  • The reading curricula category included innovative textbooks and paper-based curricula.
  • The mixed-method models combined large and small group instruction, computer-based activities, and other components to provide comprehensive reading instruction.
  • The computer-assisted instruction (CAI) programs used technology to improve students’ reading achievement.
  • The instructional-process category was comprised of programs relying primarily on using professional development to give teachers new strategies to teach reading, such as cooperative learning and strategy instruction.
  • The authors synthesize the achievement outcomes for students in grades 6-12 participating in reading interventions in each of the above categories.

Setting

Method

  • The authors found qualifying articles by conducting an electronic search of reading programs and manually scanning the table of contents of several reading-related journals.
  • The following inclusion criteria were used to find eligible studies: (1) they had to evaluate reading programs for middle and high schools, (2) they had to include students in middle or high school (grades 6 through 12), (3) they had to include a control group, (4) the study had to be available in English, (5) students had to have been randomly assigned to conditions, (6) the study could not have large between-group pretest differences, (7) they had to include quantitative measures of reading performance, (8) the interventions had to last at least 12 weeks, and (9) they had to include at least 15 treatment participants and two teachers.
  • The effect size (i.e., the difference between pre- and post-test scores) for each qualifying study was calculated.

Results

Reading Curricula Interventions
  • No reading curricula interventions met the review’s inclusion criteria.
Mixed-Method Models
  • Two secondary reading programs, READ 180 and Voyager Passport, fit the inclusion criteria for this category.
  • Both programs used small-group instruction, large-group instruction, individualized instruction, and computer-assisted techniques.
  • The mean effect size for READ 180 programs was +0.24 and the mean effect size for Voyager Passport programs was +0.17.
  • Overall, results from the 9 studies evaluating the use of mixed-method interventions with 10,000 students yielded a mean effect size of +0.23.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) Programs
  • Eight programs: Compass Learning/Jostens, CCC Integrated Learning System, Accelerated Reader, and other teacher- and school-created CAI programs, met the inclusion criteria for this review.
  • CAI studies were used with a total of 12,984 students, with a mean effect size of +0.10.
Instructional Process Programs
  • Several instructional process programs met the inclusion criteria, including: Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), Student Team Reading, The Reading Edge, Reading Apprenticeship and Xtreme Reading, The Benchmark Detectives Reading Program, Strategy Intervention Model, and Talent Development High School and Middle School. 
  • Across 15 studies, providing reading interventions to 15,000 students, the mean effect size was +0.21.
  • Within this category, 7 studies evaluated cooperative learning programs; these programs had a mean effect size of +0.28.
  • Given that the studies demonstrating moderate evidence of effectiveness typically have effect sizes of +0.20 to +0.35, the mixed-methods and instructional process programs appeared to have moderate effects on students’ reading achievement.
  • No studies yielded effect sizes in the strong evidence of effectiveness category; however, four programs met the criteria for moderate evidence of effectiveness: Reading Edge and Students Team Reading (cooperative learning programs), Read 180 (a mixed-method program), and Compass Learning/Jostens (a CAI program).
Categories:
  • Reading
Tags: