Beyond Decoding: A Meta‐Analysis of the Effects of Language Comprehension Interventions on K–5 Students’ Language and Literacy Outcomes

Abstract

The debate over the science of reading has focused primarily on decoding (i.e., connecting letters and sounds to read words) and whether to use phonics to teach it. However, research on reading has included much more than decoding. Language comprehension, which allows readers to derive meaning from text, is an equally critical component of reading. Research has suggested that explicit instruction on the components of language comprehension—vocabulary and semantics, morphology, and syntax—can support language and reading comprehension. To inform the field on the science of reading as it pertains to language comprehension, in this meta‐analysis of recent language comprehension interventions (n = 43) in U.S. elementary schools, the authors examined whether effects vary depending on participant and intervention characteristics. Findings suggest positive effects on custom measures of vocabulary, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension but not on standardized measures of these outcomes. Results also indicate positive effects for English learners and promise for multicomponent interventions and those that include technology. Much more research is needed on how best to support language comprehension for underserved populations (e.g., students from low‐income backgrounds) and how interventions can be optimized to support generalizable language and literacy outcomes. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Informing the Science of Reading: Students’ Awareness of Sentence‐Level Information Is Important for Reading Comprehension

“…Our observation was reinforced by a reading of a recent meta-analysis. Silverman, Johnson, Keane, and Khanna (2020) identified 43 studies in their meta-analysis on language comprehension interventions on reading comprehension. Seven of these studies included a syntactic component in the intervention, four of which had reading comprehension as an outcome (Connor et al, 2018;Morris et al, 2012;Proctor et al, 2011;Proctor, Silverman, Harring, Jones, & Hartranft, 2020).…”

“…Whereas a handful of meta‐analyses has investigated the relation between oral language and reading comprehension (e.g., Rogde, Hagen, Melby‐Lervåg, & Lervåg, 2019; Silverman et al, 2020), there has been only one published meta‐analysis on syntactic skills and reading comprehension. Brimo, Lund, and Sapp (2018) identified studies that compared syntactic skills of students with poor reading comprehension against those of typically developing students.…”

Sleep-Related Breathing Problem Trajectories Across Early Childhood and Academic Achievement-Related Performance at Age Eight

“…To solve word problems, theory suggests children need to: (a) construct a coherent description of essential details from the problem, (b) supplement information provided with inferences based on background knowledge, including mathematical relations, and (c) coordinate this information to guide mathematical problem-solving (Fuchs et al, 2021 ). Thus, in addition to mathematical knowledge, solving word problems includes competencies similar to those involved in reading comprehension (Silverman et al, 2020 ). Solving word problems is conceptualized as a complex task involving oral language—and specifically narrative–skills and higher level cognitive processes related to executive-functioning and memory (Fuchs et al, 2021 ).…”

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

“…Because textual dexterity encompasses multiple dimensions, educators must employ a range of approaches to foster it. The widely popularized idea that decoding instruction (e.g., learning to read) should precede teaching of other literate roles (e.g., reading to learn) has little basis in research; to the contrary, research has indicated that teaching can and should foster multiple literate roles for readers from the get‐go (Janks, 2011; Pearson et al, 2020; Rush, 2004; Silverman, Johnson, Keane, & Khanna, 2020). We offer a sampling of several research‐based practices that support each of the four interwoven literate roles.…”