Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many students struggle with gaining knowledge and writing about content text material and therefore require effective intervention. In a randomized controlled trial study, 77 low-achieving fourth-grade students received reading comprehension instruction or reading comprehension plus writing instruction or were assigned to a no-treatment control. Knowledge outcomes were evaluated through students’ retelling and performance on a standardized reading test. Written language-based outcomes were analyzed using a computer software program for semantic and syntactic measures. Analyses indicated that students in reading comprehension instruction and reading comprehension plus writing instruction outperformed the control group on oral and written retelling, a standardized reading test, and semantic measures. Syntactic measures, however, did not show statistically significant differences by treatment or control group. Implications for including language instruction and assessments within multi-component instruction are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Effect sizes for group studies are considered to be small (0.20), medium (0.50), or large (0.80) as suggest by Cohen (1988).

References

  • Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsuk, E. (2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V., Hammill, D., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1995). Test of reading comprehension-3. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Education and debate: CONSORT statement: Extension to randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 328, 702–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1996). Oral and written language scales: Written expression scale manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Language and reading disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. H. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomized trials in health research. London, UK: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, S. L. (2006). Grammar: How can I say it better? In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), Contextualized language intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 literacy achievement (pp. 145–194). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, A. W., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunning, T. G. (2003). Building literacy in the content areas. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., & Mason, L. H. (2011). Self regulated learning processes and children’s writing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187–2010). Danvers, MA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1997). Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods, 2, 64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). (2009). Illinois state achievement test. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/.

  • Jitendra, A. K., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77, 135–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade 12. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzo, A. V. (1969). The request procedure. The Journal of Reading, 13, 123–126, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H. (2007) Self-regulated strategy development reading comprehension and writing Instruction for middle school students with disabilities: A regression discontinuity study. A presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Prague, Czech Republic.

  • Mason, L. H. (2012). Explicit instruction for strategy development in two multi-component expository reading interventions: Effects for students who struggle with comprehension (submitted).

  • Mason, L. H. (in press). Teaching students who struggle with learning to think before, while, and after reading: Effects of SRSD instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly.

  • Mason, L. H., & Graham, S. (2008). Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Programs of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for nine 4th-grade students who struggle with learning. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., Reid, R., & Hagaman, J. (2012). Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (2002). SALT: Systematic analysis of language transcripts (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Madison, WI: Language Analysis Laboratory, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin.

  • Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1987–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 249–266). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The Nations Report Card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Comprehension, Part II: Text comprehension instruction. Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.

  • NCES. (2011). The Nations Report Card: Science 2009 (NCES 2011-451). IES. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • Nelson, N. W., Bahr, C. M., & Van Meter, A. M. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. A. (1998). Later language development. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. (2004). Research on later language development: International perspectives. In R. Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 1–8). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. A. (2010). Language sampling with adolescents. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of text (pp. 205–223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C., Lombardino, L., & Altmann, L. (2007). Writing through retellings: An exploratory study of language impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogevich, M. E., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavior and attention disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18 + years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (pp. 97–110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. M. (1995). Measures of syntax in school-age children and adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 309–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language-learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 71–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Scarborough, H. S., & Burns, M. S. (1999). What speech-language pathologists need to know about early reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallecorso, A. L., & deBettencourt, L. U. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 173–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, T. D., & Keppel, G. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, J., Scott, C., & Street, C. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1322–1336.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Preparation of Study 1 (Mason) was funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (Grant #H324C030e49). The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Linda H. Mason & Carol A. Miller

  2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Megan Dunn Davison

  3. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Carol Scheffner Hammer

  4. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    J. James Glutting

Authors
  1. Linda H. Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan Dunn Davison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol Scheffner Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carol A. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. James Glutting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda H. Mason.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mason, L.H., Davison, M.D., Hammer, C.S. et al. Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Read Writ 26, 1133–1158 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation