Reading Intervention for Poor Readers at the Transition to Secondary School

Clarke, Paula J.; Paul, Shirley-Anne S.; Smith, Glynnis; Snowling, Maggie; Hulme, Charles

doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1318393

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hulslander et al, 2010). Indeed, promising intervention approaches have yielded modest improvements in reading comprehension for secondary pupils (Clarke, Paul, Smith, Snowling, & Hulme, 2017;Scammacca, Roberts, Figure 5. Final model with second-order language factor for each time point.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence

Ricketts

Lervåg

Dawson

et al. 2019

Scientific Studies of Reading

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International assessments show that 20% of adolescents cannot read simple texts with understanding. Despite this, research has focused on early reading in childhood and skilled reading in adulthood, neglecting reading development during adolescence. We report a longitudinal study assessing reading and vocabulary development at 12, 13 and 14 years in a sample of 210 adolescents who were unselected for ability. Word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, reading comprehension, receptive vocabulary and expressive vocabulary were assessed using standardized assessments. Latent variable models showed consistent rank order amongst individuals (high stability), significant progress over time, and evidence that achievement gaps between the least and most able adolescents were narrowing. Oral vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension were best conceptualized as indices of a common language construct. Low levels of reading proficiency were also observed in a substantial proportion of this sample, underlining the importance of providing ongoing reading and language support during adolescence. Despite a widespread assumption that children can read when they leave primary education, international assessments show that 20% of adolescents are not able to read simple texts accurately and with understanding (Jerrim & Shure, 2016). These pupils will struggle to read independently, limiting access to the curriculum and hampering educational progress. Yet, very little is known about reading difficulties and reading development in adolescence, with research and theory focusing on reading in childhood and adulthood. Particularly lacking are longitudinal studies of adolescent reading: to our knowledge only one study has tracked reading within adolescence (see Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996). We collected longitudinal data on word reading and reading comprehension at ages 12, 13 and 14 years. Spoken vocabulary knowledge was also assessed, as it is crucial for successful reading comprehension. Reading development in adolescence Beginning readers must learn how letters map onto sounds and then to read words and sentences accurately and efficiently. Once accurate and efficient reading is in place, a reader can allocate resources to reading comprehension, which is underpinned by spoken language comprehension (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, 1986). By late childhood, most children can read a range of texts accurately, efficiently and with comprehension, so it might be tempting to assume that little reading development takes place after this point. However, we know that the brain continues to develop during adolescence (Blakemore, 2018), and this includes the brain regions involved in reading (e.g., Ben-Shachar, Dougherty, Deutsch, & Wandell, 2011). Longitudinal studies of reading development in

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence

Ricketts

Lervåg

Dawson

et al. 2019

Scientific Studies of Reading

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one study (Haines et al, 2018), treatment group students performed significantly higher on a standardized reading measure at the 2-year follow-up compared with posttest. In contrast, the data from three studies showed that treatment group students performed significantly lower on certain reading measures at follow-up than at the immediate posttest (Clarke et al, 2017; Esser, 2001; Jitendra et al, 2000).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Participants in nine studies included in this synthesis were sixth, seventh, eighth, and/or ninth graders (Berkeley et al, 2011; Clarke et al, 2017; Esser, 2001; Haines et al, 2018; Jitendra et al, 2000; Lane, 1997; Newbern, 1998; O’Connor et al, 2019; Vachon, 1999). Participants in one study (Kennedy et al, 2015) were 10th graders.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants in six studies were selected due to their school/district identification of LD (Berkeley et al, 2011; Esser, 2001; Jitendra et al, 2000; Kennedy et al, 2015; Newbern, 1998; O’Connor et al, 2019). Four studies included students who did not have an LD identification but were below grade level on a standardized reading measure (Clarke et al, 2017; Haines et al, 2018; Lane, 1997; Vachon, 1999). Clarke and colleagues (2017) included students from Grades 7 and 8 who scored below 90 on the Single Word Reading Test (SWRT; Foster & The National Foundation for Educational Research, 2008).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Synthesis of the Sustainability of Remedial Reading Intervention Effects for Struggling Adolescent Readers

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A majority of reading-related intervention studies aiming to remediate struggling readers’ reading outcomes assess student performance immediately following the conclusion of an intervention to determine intervention effects. Few studies collect follow-up data to measure the long-term sustainability of treatment effects. Hence, the aim of the current synthesis was to examine follow-up intervention effects of reading interventions involving adolescent struggling readers in Grades 6 to 12. Our literature search yielded only 10 studies that reported follow-up data for intervention participants, which highlights the dearth of intervention research that examines sustainability of intervention effects. Of the 10 included studies, the weighted mean effect size for all reading outcome measures was gw = 0.78 at immediate posttest and gw = 0.27 at follow-up, in favor of treatment group students. Although the magnitude of difference between treatment and control groups diminished at follow-up time, a comparison of treatment group students’ immediate posttest and follow-up scores showed that students mostly maintained gains made during intervention at follow-up time points.

show abstract

“…Fluent readers are mentioned by increase in reading comprehension and general academic achievement and positive attitudes. On the other hand, reading difficulty is associated with failure in personal and academic tasks (Clarke, Smith, Paul, Snowling & Hulme, 2017;Dawes, Leitao, Claessen & Nayton, 2015;Mahapatra, 2016;Visser, 2014). Visser (2014) put forth deficits of poor readers in their temporal attention spans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do fluent and poor readers’ endurance differ in reading?

Baştuğ¹

2017

CJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was observed in this research how endurance status of fluent readers and poor readers changed as the text became longer. 40 students of the primary school 4th-grade, 20 were fluent readers and other 20 were poor readers, participated in the research. A narrative text was utilised in the data collection process. Students' oral readings were recorded with a voice recorder, and their cores of reading rates and reading accuracy percentages were obtained by listening to the readings. The scores were analysed with the Friedman and Nemenyi tests. At the end of the analysis, it was seen that fluent readers' reading rates did not differ significantly from the beginning to end of the text, whereas poor readers' reading rates differed in favour of the first parts of the text. Accordingly, the fluent readers read the text at the same rate all the way, while the poor readers' reading rates significantly dropped from the beginning towards the end of the text. Furthermore, fluent readers' reading accuracy percentages differed significantly from the beginning towards the end of the text in favour of the last parts, while poor readers' reading accuracy percentages differed in favour of the first parts. As per the findings, fluent readers' reading accuracy percentages gradually increased, whereas poor readers' percentages gradually dropped. In other words, as the reading time and volume increased, poor readers' reading errors were also increased. These results were discussed in the light of the literature.

show abstract

Reading Intervention for Poor Readers at the Transition to Secondary School

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence

Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence

A Synthesis of the Sustainability of Remedial Reading Intervention Effects for Struggling Adolescent Readers

How do fluent and poor readers’ endurance differ in reading?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About