ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article15 Aug 2019

Improving Reading Comprehension in the Primary Grades: Mediated Effects of a Language-Focused Classroom Intervention

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-19-0015

    Abstract

    Purpose

    This article includes results from a multistate randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the impacts of a language-focused classroom intervention on primary grade students' proximal language skills and distal reading comprehension skills.

    Method

    The sample included 938 children from 160 classrooms in 4 geographic regions in the United States; each classroom was randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental conditions (2 variations of a language-focused intervention) or business-as-usual control. For this study, the 2 experimental conditions were collapsed, as they represented minor differences in the language-focused intervention. All children completed assessments at multiple time points during the academic year. Proximal measures (curriculum-aligned measures of vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, and understanding narrative and expository text) were administered throughout the school year. Distal measures of reading comprehension were administered at the beginning and the end of the school year.

    Results

    Multilevel multivariate regression was conducted with results showing that students receiving the language-focused intervention significantly outperformed those in the control group in comprehension monitoring and vocabulary, with effect sizes ranging from 0.55 to 1.98. A small effect in understanding text (narrative) was found in 3rd grade only. Multilevel path analyses were then conducted to examine if the intervention had a positive impact on reading comprehension through the influence of proximal language outcomes. In all 3 grades, instruction impacted reading comprehension via the mediation of vocabulary, with sizable effects (1.89–2.26); no other indirect pathways were significant.

    Conclusions

    This study provides evidence that a language-focused intervention can positively impact students' performance on language measures that are closely aligned with the intervention, with indirect, large effects on distal reading comprehension measures. Theoretically, this study provides causally interpretable support for the language bases of reading comprehension.

    References

    • Ahn, W. Y., & Vassileva, J. (2016). Machine-learning identifies substance-specific behavioral markers for opiate and stimulant dependence.Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 161, 247–257.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness.Annals of Dyslexia, 38(1), 208–225.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Beck, I., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Bleses, D., Højen, A., Justice, L. M., Dale, P. S., Dybdal, L., Piasta, S. B., … Haghish, E. (2017). The effectiveness of a large-scale language and preliteracy intervention: The SPELL randomized controlled trial in Denmark.Child Development, 89, e342–e363.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., … Hulme, C. (2008). Improving early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 422–432.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The impact of teacher responsivity education on preschoolers' language and literacy skills.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(4), 315–330.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children.Reading and Writing, 11(5–6), 489–503.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge.Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E.Wixted, J. T.Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cirino, P. T., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Foorman, B. R., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Teacher characteristics, classroom instruction, and student literacy and language outcomes in bilingual kindergartners.The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 341–364.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children's reading comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial.Psychological Science, 21(8), 1106–1116.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula.”.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35–70.
      Google Scholar
    • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction.Science, 315(5811), 464–465.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure.Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 74–88.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Jr., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003592410
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade.Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Friedman, M., & Woods, J. (2015). Coaching teachers to support child communication across daily routines in Early Head Start classrooms.Infants & Young Children, 28(4), 308–322.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2017). Test of Narrative Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading.Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Keller, B. T., & Enders, C. K. (2017). Blimp user's manual (Version 1.0). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
      Google Scholar
    • Kershaw, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading.Reading and Writing, 25(2), 433–464.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension.In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 89–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?.Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151–169.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2016). Use of the curriculum research framework (CRF) for developing a reading comprehension curricular supplement for the primary grades.The Elementary School Journal, 116(3), 459–486.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium, Arthur, A. M., & Davis, D. L. (2016). A pilot study of the impact of double-dose robust vocabulary instruction on children's vocabulary growth.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 173–200.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium, Jiang, H., & Davis, D. (2017). Let's Know! Proximal impacts on prekindergarten through grade 3 students' comprehension-related skills.The Elementary School Journal, 118(2), 177–206.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Logan, J. (2017). Pressure points in reading comprehension: A quantile multiple regression analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4), 451–464.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Language and Reading Research Consortium, Pratt, A., & Logan, J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary grade classrooms: Impacts of the Let’s Know! Experimental curriculum.Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 357–377.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.
      Google Scholar
    • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests–Fourth Edition (GMRT-4). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
      Google Scholar
    • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user's guide (Version 4.1) (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
      Google Scholar
    • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension.Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Petersen, D. B., & Spencer, T. D. (2012). The narrative language measures: Tools for language screening, progress monitoring, and intervention planning.SIG 1 Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 19(4), 119–129.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status.Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301–1308.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Schaefer, J. M., & Ottley, J. R. (2018). Evaluating immediate feedback via bug-in-ear as an evidence-based practice for professional development.Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(4), 247–258.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(4), 545–571.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2014, NCES 2016-006. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
      Google Scholar
    • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453–466.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction.Exceptionality, 12(3), 129–144.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Williams, J. P., Pollini, S., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Snyder, A. E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J. G., & Atkins, J. G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–17.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Zipke, M., Ehri, L. C., & Cairns, H. S. (2009). Using semantic ambiguity instruction to improve third graders' metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: An experimental study.Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300–321.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar

    Additional Resources