Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best‐Evidence Synthesis

Abstract

This article systematically reviews research on the achievement outcomes of four types of approaches to improving the reading of middle and high school students: (1) reading curricula, (2) mixed‐method models (methods that combine large‐and small‐group instruction with computer activities), (3) computer‐assisted instruction, and (4) instructional‐process programs (methods that focus on providing teachers with extensive professional development to implement specific instructional methods). Criteria for inclusion in the study were use of randomized or matched control groups, a study duration of at least 12 weeks, and valid achievement measures that were independent of the experimental treatments. A total of 33 studies met these criteria. The review concludes that programs designed to change daily teaching practices have substantially greater research support than those focused on curriculum or technology alone. Positive achievement effects were found for instructional‐process programs, especially for those involving cooperative learning, and for mixed‐method programs. The effective approaches provided extensive professional development and significantly affected teaching practices. In contrast, no studies of reading curricula met the inclusion criteria, and the effects of supplementary computer‐assisted instruction were small. [Note: Robert Slavin discusses the research presented in this article in a podcast presented by the “Voice of Literacy”: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/27155]. تستعرض هذه المقالة بانتظام أبحاثاً علمية فيما يتعلق بالنتائج التحصيلية لأربعة أنواع من الاتجاهات التي تهدف إلى تحسين مهارة القراءة لدى الطلاب في الإعدادية والثانوية: (1) مناهج قرائية و(2) نماذج متعددة الطرق (أي الطرق التي تجمع بين تعليم مجموعات كبيرة وصغيرة وبين أنشطة حاسوبية) و(3) التعليم بمساعدة الحاسوب و(4) برامج عملية التعليم (أي الطرق التي تركز على توفير المعلمين بتطوير ممتد في الحرفة لتنفيذ طرق تعليمية معينة). وفيما يلي المعايير المحددة لكي تدخل معلومة في البحث أولاً استخدام مجموعات ضابطة ذات الصبغة العشوائية أو المتماثلة وثانياً لا تقل مدة البحث عن 12 أسبوعاً وثالثاً نتائج تحصيلية سليمة مستقلة عن العلاجات التجريبية وفي المجموع 33 بحثاً وفت بهذه المعايير. استنتجت هذه المراجعة أن البرامج المصممة لتغيير الممارسات التعليمية اليومية قد اكتسبت دعماً بحثياً أكثر بكثير من البرامج التي ركزت على المنهاج الدراسي أو التقنية فحسب. وقد تم إيجاد تأثيرات تحصيلية إيجابية للبرامج المبنية على عملية تعليمية لا سيما التي تشتمل على التعلم التعاوني والبرامج المتعددة الطرق. وقد وفرت الاتجاهات الفعالة التطوير الممتد للحرفة وأثرت على الممارسات التعليمية بشكل كبير وعلى النقيض من ذلك لم يفِ أي بحث علمي في المنهاج القرائي بمعايير دخول هذه الدراسة وكانت تأثيرات التعليم التكميلي بمساعدة الحاسوب ضئيلة. [Podcast: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/27155]. 本文有系统地回顾有关以四个不同途径改善初、高中生阅读成果的研究：(1)从学生阅读课程着手，(2)采用混合教学模式(结合了大班、小组授课和电脑活动的教学法)，(3)采用电脑辅助教学法，(4)采用教学过程训练课程(集中提供教师广泛的专业发展，帮助他们实施一些专门的教学法)。纳入研究回顾之标准为：研究采用随机样本或对照组，研究起码持续至十二周，学习成果考验方法正确有效，独立于不同实验组所进行的实验处理。有33个研究符合这些标准，被纳入回顾。本文的结论是：训练课程的设计若是针对改变教师的日常教学实践，较光是针对阅读课程或电脑科技，有更充分的研究实证支持。教学过程训练课程，尤其是那些采用合作...

The Reading Edge: a randomized evaluation of a middle school cooperative reading program

“…Yet, at present there are few programs with strong evidence of effectiveness. In a recent systematic review of the research on middle-and high-school reading programs, Slavin, Cheung, Groff, and Lake (2008) found only 33 studies that met minimal requirements for inclusion in the review (e.g., experimental-control comparisons, controls for pre-test differences, duration of at least 12 weeks). Of the programs reviewed in these studies, none met the standards for 'strong evidence of effectiveness', but four programs met the standards for 'moderate evidence of effectiveness'.…”

How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation

“…The average impact estimate was 0.132 of a standard deviation, though the estimates ranged widely, from a low of 0.045 to a high of 0.762 of a standard deviation. In a more recent systematic review of computer-assisted instruction effects on reading, Slavin et al (2008) found a weighted mean effect of 0.1 of a standard deviation across eight eligible studies. Importantly, all of these studies focused on computerassisted instructional packages as standalone, supplemental interventions rather than as components of integrated, blended curricula.…”

“…The prescribed dosage is typically 90 minutes per day, five days per week (Loadman et al, 2011;Scholastic, n.d.). It is part of a class of interventions that Slavin et al (2008) refer to as "mixed-methods models" and what others call "blended learning" models (Horn and Staker, 2011), but, given that it prominently features an adaptive, computer-based component, we classify it as a computer-assisted approach in our analysis. Based on seven studies that meet evidence standards with reservations (comparable to a level 4 on the Maryland Scale), the WWC found potentially positive effects for the impact of Read 180 relative to comparison curricula on comprehension, with an average increase of 0.11 of a standard deviation, or 4 percentile points, and on general literacy achievement, with an average increase of 0.31 of a standard deviation, or 12 percentile points.…”

“…Based on seven studies that meet evidence standards with reservations (comparable to a level 4 on the Maryland Scale), the WWC found potentially positive effects for the impact of Read 180 relative to comparison curricula on comprehension, with an average increase of 0.11 of a standard deviation, or 4 percentile points, and on general literacy achievement, with an average increase of 0.31 of a standard deviation, or 12 percentile points. Based on eight studies, four of which overlapped with the WWC analysis, Slavin et al (2008) provide a weighted mean effect of 0.24 of a standard deviation for Read 180 relative to comparison curricula. However, none of the studies included in Slavin et al's systematic review of computer-assisted instruction, or in the WWC review of Read 180, was conducted in correctional education settings.…”

Reading Recovery and Evidence‐based Practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007)

“…Best-evidence analyses rely on a small number of high-quality studies that meet specific selection criteria. Researchers may argue over the nature of the criteria, their application to particular studies, or the sufficiency of the evidence to support claims of effectiveness (Slavin, 1986(Slavin, , 2008Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008).…”