Reglin, G., Cameron, H., & Losike-Sedimo, N. (2012). Effects of a parent support reading intervention on seventh-grade at- risk students’ reading comprehension scores. Reading Improvement, 49(1), 17-27.
The authors of this study conducted this study to determine
the impact of parental support on at-risk middle school students. The study was an experimental study “to
determine the effectiveness of a parent support reading (PSR) intervention on
increasing the reading comprehension scores of seventh-grade students at the
middle school.” The study began by
recognizing a need to address a 43% decrease in seventh-grade students passing
the state end-of-year test. “During the
past 4 years (2006-2010), the students’ seventh-grade reading scores at the
study site on the state end-of-grade (EOG) reading test declined from 71.1% to
28.1%.” This study included parents of
15 male and 15 female students. These
parents participated in a 12 week Parent Support Reading Intervention. Their students’ pre-test scores were compared
with 30 additional students that did not have parents involved in the
intervention. The intervention taught
parents strategies to work with their students as well as strategies for communicating
and volunteering with their child’s school.
The findings of the study support the Parent Support Intervention model
as effective for at-risk students.
Students’ post-test scores were significantly higher than the students
in the control group.
Ritchey, K., Silverman, R., Montanaro, E., Speece, D., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 318-334.
This quantitative case study examined the effects of
supplemental reading interventions for tier two readers. The participants in this study participated
in interventions over a two year period.
There were 123 fourth-grade students that were identified as having a
higher probability for reading failure.
The interventions were given over 12 to 15 week time periods and were a
total of 16 hours of reading intervention. This study was a
quantitative study that used a control group of students to compare
scores. No students in the study received
special education services. “Intervention students performed
significantly higher on science knowledge and comprehension strategy knowledge
and use, but not on word reading, fluency, or other measures of reading comprehension. Moderators of intervention effects were also examined;
children at higher risk in the intervention condition appeared to benefit
more in comparison to lower probability children intervention and compared to higher
probability children in the control condition.”
Swain, K., Leader-Janssen, E., & Conley, P. (2013). Effects of repeated reading and listening passage preview on oral reading fluency. Reading Improvement, 50(1), 12-18.
“This
case study examined the effectiveness of three fluency interventions (i.e., repeated reading, audio listening passage
preview and teacher modeled listening passage preview) with a fifth grade
student struggling with fluency skills.”
The study was selected to seek which fluency intervention would provide
the most reading fluency gains. This study
was a qualitative case study focusing on one student. In this study the student came to
intervention once weekly over 12 weeks.
The student attended 9 out of 12 intervention sessions. During each session, the student was assessed
using repeated reading, audio listening passage preview, and teacher modeled
oral reading fluency. “When compared to
baseline, each intervention increased oral reading fluency by the end of the 7
weeks of intervention. Teacher modeled listening passage preview resulted in
the greatest fluency growth using R-CBM passages. “ After the initial 12 week
period, a 5 month follow up was conducted.
During the follow up the results indicated that repeated reading and
listening passage preview maintained growth, audio listening passage preview
dropped but remained above the initial baseline data.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J. (2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73-87.
The authors conducted an experimental study and reports on
their findings of the effects from a year long reading intervention for special
education middle school students provided in addition to the students’ IEP
requirements. The students in the
treatment group were given 50 minutes daily intervention in addition to their
regular classes. The treatment group was
compared to other special education students that did not receive the 50
minutes daily intervention.
Statistically significant results favored the treatment group for sight
word reading fluency following intervention.
Small effects were found for phonemic decoding fluency and passage
comprehension. No other statistically
significant differences were noted between the groups. The findings suggest that although gains on
word reading fluency resulted form the additional reading treatment,
accelerating the reading performance of students identified with learning
disabilities may be unlikely to result from a 1-year daily intervention provided
in middle school.
Zentall, S., & Lee, J. (2012). A reading motivation intervention with differential outcomes for students at risk for reading disabilities, ADHD, and typical comparisions: “Clever is as clever does”. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 248- 259.
The authors conduct research on motivational intervention
for students at risk for reading disabilities, ADHD students, and typical
students. “A combined motivational intervention was administered to 80
second-grade through fifth-grade students in a randomized pretest–posttest
control group design with three population groups and two conditions. The intervention condition described a
positive label (e.g., “clever”) associated with specific reading behavior (e.g., answers questions)
accompanied by a challenge to perform better than before and better than
another (intrinsic and extrinsic goals).”
The overall concept of the study was to see if providing positive
performance feedback would impact the performance of students in each sample
group. “While controlling for initial reading differences, the intervention improved the fluency and
comprehension for the RD group, with and without attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), relative to the no disability (ND) group, even though
the ND group also made gains. These findings documented a first-tier
empirically based intervention with practical applications for elementary students
with RD and their peers, although gains in reading for the ADHD group without RD
were not significant.”
