Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction.

Findings

Vocabulary development outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain

Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement     index	Evidence tier
Vocabulary	Embedded comprehension training-—Williams et al. (2009) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Text structure vs. No instruction; 10 classes	0.20	0.05	No	46

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in 15 classrooms (5 classrooms per condition) taught by second-grade teachers from four elementary schools in a large metropolitan area.

Study sample

The sample was classes taught by second-grade teachers from four elementary schools in a large metropolitan area that had 90% of students eligible for free or reduced rate lunch and 6% of students receiving special education services, The school enrollment included 61% Hispanic and 37% African American.

Intervention Group

Both TS and CP interventions taught students about animals in 12 lessons taught over the course of 22 sessions (approximately 3 sessions per week). Each session was about 45 minutes in length and the intervention period lasted for about 2 months. Lessons 1-2 focused on familiar animals (e.g., cats and dogs), lessons 3-9 focused on compare-contrast paragraphs and lessons 10-12 focused on mixed-structure paragraphs. For the Text Structure program, each lesson began with clue words and continued with teachers reading about the target animals from the encyclopedia or trade books and introducing vocabulary concepts. Then students read silently the compare-contrast paragraph and also listened to the teacher read it aloud while following along with their own copies. The students analyzed the paragraph, and used matrices to organize the paragraph's content. Finally, the students wrote summaries of the text and ended the lesson with a lesson review with their teacher. For the Content program, each lesson began with background knowledge and trade book reading/discussion. The students then organized the paragraph content using information webs, were presented a list of vocabulary words to study, and read a compare-contrast paragraph. After that, a general discussion was held between students and teacher and students used the information web, the paragraph, and the class discussion to complete a "paragraph frame" with fill-in-the-blank responses. The lesson ended with an animal fact book and a lesson review. No student attended less than 64% of the lessons. These programs are extensions of programs used for a previous study (Williams et al. 2005 -- FR009217 from WWC review). These revised programs (interventions) are "more demanding" in that they require summary writing supported by the paragraph frame and independent summary writing. Both interventions focus on trade book reading and discussion, vocabulary, reading of a target paragraph, summaries of the paragraphs, and lesson reviews. The reading material included an animal encyclopedia, trade books, and 12 "compare-contrast and mixed-structure (compare-contrast and pro-con) paragraphs" (9 of which were used in the previous study). The mean readability of the paragraphs was at the 2.3 grade level according to the Dale-Chall Readability Scale. The Text Structure intervention focuses on clue words, compare-contrast questions, graphic organizers (matrices), and analysis of the target paragraphs. In contrast, the Content intervention focuses on background knowledge, general content discussion, graphic organizers (using an information web), and an animal fact book.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was a business as usual group with no instruction in reading science content.

Support for implementation

About 1 week prior to the beginning of the instruction , teachers received Individual training sessions (30 min) to familiarize them to the program, including the program’s overall goals and a review of each section of the lessons. Lessons were reportedly very detailed with no need for additional teacher preparation. Teachers were asked to deliver all the content and concepts discussed in the teachers’ manual, but could tailor the instruction according to their own individual teaching styles and professional judgment.