We conducted a 14–week experimental study of 2 versions of a relatively comprehensive RC intervention that involved 50 classroom teachers, 15 tutors, and 116 children drawn in equal proportions from grades 3 and 5 in 13 schools in a large urban school district. Students were randomly assigned in equal numbers to the two tutoring conditions and a control group. Results indicated that students in the two tutored groups tended to perform comparably on all tests and to outperform controls (more so in grade 5 than grade 3) on near–transfer but not far–transfer measures of RC. This differential pattern of program effects for near– versus far–transfer measures raises questions about how tests of near–transfer and far–transfer are conventionally understood.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldwinS. A., BauerD. J., SticeE., & RohdeP. (2011). Evaluating models for partially clustered designs. Psychological Methods, 16, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023464.
2.
BeckerW. C., EnglemannS., CarnineD., & RhineR. (1981). Direct instruction models. In RhineR. (Ed.), Encouraging change in American schools: A decade of experimentation (pp. 45–83). New York: Academic Press.
3.
BerningerV., & RichardsT. (2010). Inter–relationships among behavioral markers, genes, brain, and treatment in dyslexia and dysgraphia. Future Neurology, 5, 597–617. https://doi.org/10.2217/fnl.10.22.
4.
CarrettiB., CaldarolaN., TencatiC., & CornoldiC. (2014). Improving reading comprehension in reading and listening settings: The effect of two training programmes focusing on metacognition and working memory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12022.
5.
ComptonD. L., MillerA. C., GilbertJ. K., & SteacyL. M. (2013). What can be learned about the reading comprehension of poor readers through the use of advanced statistical modeling techniques? In CuttingL. E., MillerB., & McCardleP. (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, & genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 135–147). Baltimore: Brookes.
6.
DanemanM., & MerikleP. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta–analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546.
7.
FuchsD., EllemanA. M., FuchsL. S., PengP., KearnsD. M., ComptonD. L., et al. (2016). A randomized control trial of explicit instruction with and without cognitive training to strengthen the reading comprehension of poor readers in first grade. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
Garcia–MadrugaJ. A., ElosuaM. R., GilL., Gomez–VeigaI., VitaJ. O., OrjalesI., et al. (2013). Reading comprehension and working memory's executive processes: An intervention study in primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.44.
9.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., WilliamsJ. P., & BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279.
10.
HooverH. D., DunbarS. B., & FrisbieD. A. (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
11.
KintschW., & KintschE. (2005). Comprehension. In ParisS. G. & StahlS. A. (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
KintschW. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Melby–LervågM., & HulmeC. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta–analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228.
15.
MeneghettiC., CarrettiB., & De BeniR. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.11.001.
16.
NationK. (2005). Children's reading comprehension difficulties. In SnowlingM. J. & HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
17.
National Reading Panel (2000). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence–based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18.
O'ConnorR., & FuchsL. S. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in the elementary grades: Implications for early childhood education. Handbook of response to intervention (RTI) in early childhood education (pp. 41–56). Baltimore: Brookes.
19.
PalladinoP., CornoldiC., De BeniR., & PazzagliaF. (2001). Working memory andupdating processes in reading comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29, 344–354. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194929.
20.
SchwaighoferM., FischerF., & BuhnerM. (2015). Does working memory training transfer? A meta–analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist, 50, 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036274.
21.
SterbaS. K. (in press). Partially nested designs in psychotherapy trials: A review of modeling developments. Psychotherapy Research.
22.
SwansonH. L., & HowellM. (2001). Working memory, short–term memory, and speech rate as predictors of children's reading performance at different ages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 720–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.720.
23.
SwansonH. L., & O'ConnorR. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 548–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338742.
24.
TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR. K., & RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency (2nd ed.). Austin: Pro–Ed.
25.
UnsworthN., & EngleR. W. (2007). On the division of short–term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.1038.
26.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Average scale scores for reading, grade 4 by disability status of student, excluding those with 504 plan, year and jurisdiction. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
27.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Individual achievement test (3rd ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
28.
WechslerD. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated scale of intelligence (2nd ed.). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.
29.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook, version 3.0. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Protocols#procedures
