Effects of Technology-Based Teacher Training and Teacher-Led Classroom Implementation on Learning Reading Comprehension Strategies

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of a professionally developed comprehensive reading comprehension strategies program when compared to traditional reading comprehension instruction presented to 865 fourth and fifth graders (682 with full data sets) in 34 classrooms in the United States. The treatment included a strong, technology-based teacher training component as well as highly motivational materials for 53 classroom-delivered student lessons. The research design was a randomized trial at the classroom level, with classes randomly assigned to either the treatment (classroom n=17) or control (classroom n=17) conditions. Hierarchical Linear Modeling was performed on student achievement data, nested within classrooms within treatment conditions, for the intact classes. HLM analyses using experimenter-designed achievement tests as the outcome variable showed a significant effect for condition, with students in the treatment condition scoring higher than students in the control condition across all the different student groups (gender, ethnicity, and English Language proficiency).

Keywords

• DVD, Teacher training, Reading comprehension, Strategies

References

1. ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.
2. Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 391- 403.
3. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York: Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
5. Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.
7. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 204-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
8. Ellery, V. (2005). Creating strategic readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

9. Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford.
10. Gambrell, L. (2007). Sundance comprehension strategies kit. Northborough, MA: Sundance Publishing.
11. Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (2007). Teaching reading in the 21st century (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Graves, M. F., & Liang, L. A. (2003). On-line resources for fostering understanding and higher-level thinking in senior high school students. Schallert, D. L., Fairbanks, C. M., Worthy, J. Maloch, B., & Hoffman, J. V. (Eds.), 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference Yearbook (pp. 204-215). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
13. Graves, M. F., & Philippot, R. A. (2002, December). Time given to preparing reading teachers: Is it sufficient? Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami.
14. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Making Meaning. (2003). Berkeley, CA: Developmental Learning Center.
15. Israel, S. E., & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge.
16. Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C. Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom intervention practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
17. Kennedy, A.M., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., & Trong, K.L. (2007). PIRLS 2006 encyclopedia: A guide to reading education in the forty PIRLS 2006 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
18. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
19. Lee, J., & Weiss, A. (2007).The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History 2006 (NCES 2007–474). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20. National Association of State Boards of Education. (2005). Reading at risk: The report of the NASBE study group on middle and high school literacy. Alexandria, VA: Author.
21. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
22. National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23. Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading in the twentieth century. In T. L. Good & M. Early (Eds.), American education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
24. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L .R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In Samuels, S .J. & Farstrup, A. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed.). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, pp. 145– 199).
25. Perie, M., & Moran, R. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics (NCES 2005-464). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
26. Pressley, M. (2006, April). What the future of reading research could be. Paper presented at the International Reading Association’s Reading Research 2006, Chicago.
27. Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn of the century report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11-27). New York: The Guilford Press.
28. Pressley, M. (2000). What should reading comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3 (pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension strategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488.
30. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.
31. Programme for International Student Assessment. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
32. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
33. Reading Explorations. (2002). Bloomington, MN: PLATO Learning.
34. Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C. & Smith, J. A. (2003, December). Teaching comprehension strategies using information texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
35. Correspondence: Gregory C. Sales, President and CEO, Seward Incorporated, 2200 East Franklin
36. Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55404, United States.