Reading nonfiction texts with understanding is important to school success, yet many students struggle to do so. This randomized controlled trial extends previous research by contrasting an earlier iteration of a comprehension tutoring program (Comp) against a variant with strategies for transferring learning (Comp+Transfer). Participants were 189 fourth and fifth graders with weak reading comprehension. To evaluate their efficacy, we used commercially developed far–transfer measures and experimenter–made near– and mid–transfer measures of reading comprehension. In contrast to controls, students in both programs significantly improved their understanding of near–transfer passages. Additionally, students in Comp+Transfer improved performance on mid–transfer passages. These findings suggest the value of teaching for transfer and the importance of measuring program efficacy with researcher–made tests alongside commercial tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfflerbachP., PearsonP. D., & ParisS. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
2.
AllowayT., BibileV., & LauG. (2013). Computerized working memory training: Can it lead to gains in cognitive skills in students?Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.023
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.
4.
ArcherA. L., & HughesC. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.
5.
BarnettS. M., & CeciS. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.128.4.612
6.
BarthA. E., & EllemanA. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a multistrategy inference intervention for middle–grade struggling readers. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools (Online), 48(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS–16–0041
7.
BestR. M., FloydR. G., & McNamaraD. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951
8.
BransfordJ. D., BrownA. L., & CockingR.R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
9.
CainK., & OakhillJ. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x67610
10.
CainK., OakhillJ., & BryantP. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension failure: The comprehension–age match design. Reading and Writing, 12, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008058319399
11.
CattsH., & KamhiA. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS–16–0033
12.
ClemensN., & FuchsD. (in press). Commercially–developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool's gold?Reading Research Quarterly.
13.
CollinsA. A., LindströmE. R., & ComptonD. L. (2018). Comparing students with and without reading difficulties on reading comprehension assessments: A meta–analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417704636
14.
ComptonD., MillerA., EllemanA., & SteacyL. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200
15.
CuttingL., & ScarboroughH. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
16.
EasonS. H., GoldbergL. F., YoungK. M., GeistM. C., & CuttingL. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027182
17.
FuchsD., HendricksE., WalshM. E., FuchsL. S., GilbertJ. K., Zhang TracyW., PattonS., Davis–PerkinsN., KimW., EllemanA. M., & PengP. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near–transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12162
18.
FuchsD., KearnsD. M., FuchsL. S., EllemanA. M., GilbertJ. K., PattonS., PengP., & ComptonD. (2018). Using moderator analysis to identify the first–grade children who benefit most and least from a reading comprehension program: A step towards aptitude–by–treatment interaction. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918802801
19.
GajriaM., JitendraA. K., SoodS., & SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301
20.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., ComptonD., CoyneM., GreenwoodC., & InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi–experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
21.
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
22.
GilbertJ. K., ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BoutonB., BarqueroL. A., & ChoE. (2013). Efficacy of a first–grade responsiveness–to–intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.45
23.
GilmourA., FuchsD., & WehbyJ. (2018). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta–analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359341
24.
GraesserA. C., McNamaraD. S., & KulikowichJ. M. (2011). Coh–metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11413260
25.
HagamanJ. L., & ReidR. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29(4), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507311638
26.
HallK. M., SabeyB. L., & McClellanM. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary–grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590962550
27.
HebertM., BohatyJ. J., NelsonJ. R., & RoehlingJ. V. (2018). Writing informational text using provided information and text structures: An intervention for upper elementary struggling writers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(9), 2165–2190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145–018–9841–x
KeenanJ., BetjemannR., & OlsonR. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
31.
KoskinenP. S., GambrellL. B., KapinusB. A., & HeathingtonB. S. (1988). Retelling: A strategy for enhancing students’ reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 41(9), 892–896. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20199962
Manset–WilliamsonG., & NelsonJ. M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper–elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126973
34.
McNamaraD. S., OzuruY., & FloydR. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.
35.
McNeishD., & WentzelK.R. (2017). Accommodating small sample sizes in three level models when the third level is incidental. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1262236
36.
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
37.
MillerB., McCardleP., & HernandezR. (2010). Advances and remaining challenges in adult literacy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359341
38.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. http://www.corestandards.org/wp–content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf
39.
PearsonP. D., & HammD. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices: past, present, and future. In ParisS. G. & StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp 13–69). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
PengP., BarnesM., WangC., WangW., LiS., SwansonH. L., DardickW., & TaoS. (2018). A meta–analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124
41.
PerkinsD. N., & SalomonG. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
42.
PowellS. R., & FuchsL. S. (2010). Contribution of equal–sign instruction beyond word–problem tutoring for third–grade students with mathematics difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018447
43.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn–of–the–century status report. In C. C. Block & PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research–based best practices (pp.11–27). Guilford.
44.
RupleyW. H., BlairT. R., & NicholsW. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 125–138, https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523
45.
ScammaccaN. K., RobertsG., VaughnS., & StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta–analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
46.
LewisScammacca, K N. (chair), ClemensN., & RobertsG. (2019). Best practices for developing proximal measures of intervention effects. Symposium conducted at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Coronado, CA.
47.
SchulzK. F., AltmanD. G., & MoherD. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 340(7748), 698–702. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
SlavinR. E., LakeC., ChambersB., CheungA., & DavisS. (2010). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best–evidence synthesis. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data–Driven Reform in Education.
51.
SterbaS. K. (2017). Partially nested designs in psychotherapy trials: A review of modeling developments. Psychotherapy Research, 27(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1114688
52.
TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR. K., & RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (2nd ed.). Pro–Ed.
WanzekJ., & VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2009.00289.x
55.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Psychological Corporation.
WilliamsJ. P., PolliniS., Nubla–KungA. M., SnyderA. E., GarciaA., OrdynansJ. G., & AtkinsJ. G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033215
59.
WoodcockR. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (3rd ed.). Pearson.
