Setting
This study was conducted amongst seventh- and eighth-grade students from six middle schools in two large, urban cities in the southwestern United States. Approximately half of the sample was recruited from each of the two urban sites. The two schools of the first site were classified as urban; the remaining four schools were classified as suburban and rural.
Study sample
Of the 486 students included in the analytic sample, 43 percent were female, and 74 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The sample included 193 African American students (40 percent), 211 Hispanic students (43 percent), 67 White students (14 percent), 13 Asian students (3 percent), and 2 American Indian students (0.41 percent). Among the 15 teachers hired and trained by the researchers to deliver the interventions, they had an average of 6.3 years of teaching experience. Each was a certified teacher with an undergraduate degree. Ten teachers had a master’s degree in education, and 12 teachers had a teaching certification in a reading-related field.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This review compares the researcher-designed large group intervention with the comparison (business as usual) group. Students in the large-group intervention group were provided a multi-component instructional intervention that addressed multisyllable word reading, academic vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and comprehension. The experimental group met for 45 to 50 minutes each day over the course of a full school year (from September through May). The intervention was composed of three phases of instruction, each of which prioritized an element of instruction and also incorporated the skills and knowledge covered in previous phases. Phase 1 focused on word study and fluency, as well as vocabulary and comprehension. The fluency work involved pairing higher- and lower-performing readers for reading fluency practice, and the teacher provided feedback to each pair. For the word study component, teachers provided advanced word study strategies for decoding multisyllabic words. The vocabulary component involved instruction on unfamiliar vocabulary words and a review of previously taught words. Lastly, the comprehension component involved discussion of passages in the word study component. Phase 2 focused on vocabulary and comprehension and included additional instruction and practice in word study and fluency skills and strategies. For the word study and vocabulary components, students reviewed skills and strategies learned in Phase 1 by applying them to new vocabulary words and texts. For the fluency and comprehension components, students worked with expository and narrative texts and worked on fluency as well as generating questions, identifying the main idea, summarizing, and answering questions. Phase 3 continued the focus on vocabulary and comprehension and emphasized independent student application of skills and strategies. The word study and vocabulary components were the same as in Phase 2 but with new activities and units developed by the research team. And similar to Phase 2, the fluency and comprehension components involved review and practice of previously learned skills and strategies using new expository and narrative texts.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was “business as usual.” Students participated in their regular English language arts or reading classes.
Support for implementation
The researchers provided intervention teachers with approximately 60 hours of professional development prior to teaching, as well as an additional nine hours of professional development related to the intervention throughout the year. Professional development hours included training on methods specific to the intervention, features of effective instruction, behavior management, and general information about adolescent struggling readers. Also, teachers received ongoing feedback and coaching, and there were biweekly staff development meetings.