A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

13.07.2015 Views
VOLUME 35, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 395(Table 2 continued)Author/participantTreatment description/sampleage/design size/treatment duration Dependent measures Results/effect sizes (d )Smith (continued)Vaughn et al., 20008.5–8.8 yearsQuasi-experimentalpretest–posttestcomparison design Modeling with correction and previewing:After modeling, student reread themodeled portion and continued to readfor 5 minutes. Follow-up: Student read passage additionaltime.Length and duration: Not specified, allconditions administered once.Partner Reading (PR; n = 7): Partnerstook turns reading (3 minutes each)with the more prong>ofong>icient reader readingfirst. 1-minute, timed reading followed.Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR;n = 9): Partners used four-strategy approachto reading textLength and duration: 2–3 sessionsweekly for 12 weeks; approximately 25miuntes per session for PR and 45minutes per session for CSR.Gray Oral Reading Test, rate b PR vs. CSR: d = .69Gray Oral Reading Test, accuracy b PR vs. CSR: d = .65Gray Oral Reading Test, PR vs. CSR: d = .30comprehension bTest ong>ofong> Reading Fluency, words PR vs. CSR: d = .16correct per minute baNegative d reflects positive outcome favoring treatment listed first. b Statistical comparisons were not possible because ong>ofong> the small sample size in each group.ency than the control sample (d = .17),but there were no significant differencesbetween the repeated readingcondition and the control condition onmeasures ong>ofong> fluency (d = .10) or comprehension(d = .01). Moreover, on amaze task, effect sizes were small butsignificant when the repeated readingwith partners condition was comparedwith the control condition (d = .24) andslightly higher, though still moderate,when the sustained reading conditionwas compared with the control condition(d = .38).Modeling by audiotape or computer.Results from four samples (N = 12) addressedthe question ong>ofong> whether an audiotapedor computer model or previewong>ofong> the text to be read by thestudents in the sample improved thereading fluency ong>ofong> students with LD.Of the four samples, one used a casestudy design (Moseley, 1993) and threeused a single-subject design (Daly &Martens, 1994; Gilbert, Williams, & Mc-Laughlin, 1986; Rose & Beattie, 1986).In the case study sample, the modelwas provided through a speech synthesizer,with the pace controlled bythe student. In this case, the student’sreading fluency decreased from 76words correct per minute at pretest to63 words correct per minute during theintervention. However, at the followuptest ong>ofong> fluency, the student read at112 words correct per minute, suggestingthat the overall impact ong>ofong> the interventionmay have been positive. In oneong>ofong> the single-subject designs, Rose andBeattie (1986) compared listening previewing,in which the teacher modeledreading ong>ofong> the text, with a taped preview,in which the student controlledthe tape and followed along readingwith the tape. For three ong>ofong> the four students,the teacher-modeled reading ong>ofong>the text was more effective than thetaped model.Daly and Martens (1994) compared ataped model ong>ofong> passage reading withrepeated reading without a model andwith audiotaped reading ong>ofong> a relatedword list. On measures ong>ofong> passagereading accuracy and fluency, thetaped reading model resulted in consistentlybetter performance than repeatedreading without a model andtaped words. The taped words conditionresulted in better performance ona measure ong>ofong> word reading accuracyfor three ong>ofong> the four participants in thestudy.Gilbert et al. (1986) compared ataped model ong>ofong> fluent reading followedby three repeated readings to abaseline condition in which the teacherintroduced vocabulary and importantphonics elements and the studentsilently read the passage once. Fluencyand accuracy improved for all threestudents in both conditions.Repeated Reading Interventionswith Multiple Features. Three groupsamples and four single-case samples(N = 52) involved interventions that includedrepeated reading as one ong>ofong> severalinstructional features. The meaneffect size across interventions on measuresong>ofong> fluency was d = .71 and rangedfrom d = .20 to d = 1.17. These studiesare listed in Table 3.Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, andHodge (1995) compared an interventionthat combined an effective teachingcomponent and peer-mediated repeatedreading to traditional readinginstruction. On a measure ong>ofong> oral readingfluency, the students who receivedthe combination ong>ofong> effective teaching

396TABLE 3Studies Examining Repeated Reading with Multiple FeaturesAuthor/participantTreatment description/sampleage/design size/treatment duration Dependent measures Results/effect sizes (d)Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs,Mathes, & Hodge, 19959.47–9.91 yearsTreatment–ComparisonD. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, &Simmons, 1996Mean age = 9.87 years(PALs group); 10.09years (No PALs group)Treatment–ComparisonSutton, 1991Ages not providedPre–Posttest design Effective teaching plus peer tutoring(ET+PT; n = 11): Effective instructionalprinciples and peer tutoring using repeatedreading (3 readings/passagefor first 4 weeks, 2 readings/passagefor second 4 weeks), story retells, andparagraph summarization. Comparison (C; n = 29): Traditionalreading instruction.Duration: 800 minutes Peer Assisted Learning (PALs; n = 20):Partner reading with retell (one repeatedreading), paragraph summary,and prediction relay. No PALs (n = 20): Traditional readinginstruction.Duration: 1,350 minutesN = 17Four-element condition:1. Teacher modeled reading ong>ofong> story.2. Target students read to tutor partners.3. Partner reading.4. Target student read story to teacher.No. ong>ofong> words read in 3 min. ET + PT > C;ET + PT vs. C: d = .73No. ong>ofong> words read in 3 min. No significant differences(delayed)between groups;ET + PT vs. C: d = .53No. comprehension questions ET + PT > C;correct ET + PT vs. C: d = .82No. comprehension questions No significant differencescorrect (delayed)between groups;ET + PT vs. C: d = .36No. maze items correct in 2 min. ET + PT > C;ET + PT vs. C: d = 1.00Matched words in recall summaries No significant differencesbetween groups;ET + PT vs. C: d = 1.05Total words in recall summaries No significant differencesbetween groups;ET + PT vs. C: d = .78SAT ComprehensionNo significant differencesbetween groups;ET + PT vs. C: d = .56;Mean effect size (ET +PT vs. C): d = .73Average number ong>ofong> words read PALs vs. No PALs:orally in 3 min. d = .20Average number ong>ofong> correct PALs vs. No PALs:responses to 10 comprehension d = .63questionsNumber ong>ofong> maze items correct PALs vs. No PALs:d = .49Mean effect size (PALsv. No PALs): d = .44Brigance Test ong>ofong> Oral Reading Posttest vs. Pretest:(words per minute) d = 1.17Brigance Test ong>ofong> Oral Reading Posttest vs. Pretest:(errors per minute) a d = .91;Mean effect size(Posttest vs. Pretest):d = 1.04Weinstein & Cooke, 19928 years 1 month–10 years2 monthsMulti-treatment, singlesubjectdesign (ABACA)N = 4Baseline: Each student read first set ong>ofong>3 passages for first baseline phaseand the intervention conditions. Sameprocedure was used for the second setong>ofong> passages. Third set ong>ofong> 3 passageswas used for final baseline.Intervention (10 min./day):1. Students listened to taped model at100 wpm.2. Students asked to read passagequickly and accurately.Oral reading fluency All students madeprogress over baseline;mean gains rangingfrom 16.1 to 39.4words correct perminute. Mean gain for thefixed-rate phase = 62% Mean gain for the improvementphase= 58%(Table continues)

Page 9: 394(Table 2 continued)Author/partic

Page 13 and 14: 398TABLE 4Studies That Examined Oth

Page 15 and 16: 400JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES



Page 21: 406JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

fluency

repeated

oral

passage

comprehension

accuracy

significant

fuchs

intervention

repeatedreading

synthesis

interventions

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ... ... View more A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

Delete template?

Save as template ?

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ... A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...