improving reading comprehension: effects from interventions monica melby-lervåg
TRANSCRIPT
Improving reading comprehension: Effects from interventions
Monica Melby-Lervåg
My talk1. The foundation of reading comprehension 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia3. To examine the effects from an intervention4. Effects from interventions directly targeting reading comprehension 5. Effects from interventions targeting underlying components of reading comprehension (general cognitive processes, decoding, vocabulary).
1. The foundation of reading comprehension
Background
Reading comprehension = Word decoding Linguistic Comprehension
working memory?
Inference skills?
Morphology?
Syntax?
The study
198 unselected Norwegian speaking children
Assessment scheme
Middle of 2nd grade
End of 2nd
grade
Middle of 3rd grade
End of 3rd
grade
Middle of 6th grade
Middle of 7th grade
Lervåg & Melby-Lervåg, work in progress
NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6NARA T1
Morpheme Generation
Syntactic Skills
Vocabulary Width
Inference Skills TOWRE A TOWRE B
Listening Recall
Backward Digit Recall
Vocabulary Definitions
Vocab. Width
Residual
Syntac. Skills
Residual
Morph. Gen..
Residual
Inf. Skills Residual
Vocab. Def.
Residual
Linguistic Comprehension
Word Decoding
Working Memory
Reading Comprehension
Initial Status
Reading Comprehension
Early Growth
Reading Comprehension
Later Growth
3.55**
2.21**.735*1.02**
.614**
-.20**
.622*
.058*
2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia
FAMILY RISK OF DYSLEXIA
StudyMeta-analysis of studies examining reading comprehension and underlying skills in children with dyslexia (Snowling & Melby-Lervåg, submitted)
A systematic search detected 123 studies that used a family risk methodology to study reading
disorders
Effect size
Effect size
Cohens d
Example d = -1.00
Results
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Family risk children without dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Toddlers (1- 3.5 years)
Articulatory accuracy Expressive language Receptive language
Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Gro
up d
iffer
ence
d (S
TD u
nits
)
Preschool
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Family risk children with out dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Articulatory accuracy
Receptive vocabulary
grammar Phoneme awareness
Rapid naming
Gro
up d
iffer
ence
d (S
TD u
nits
)
Primary school
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Family risk children with out dyslexia vs controls not at –risk
Expressive vocabulary
Phoneme awareness
Rapid naming
Word decoding
Reading comprehension
Gro
up d
iffe
renc
e d
(ST
D u
nits
)
3. To examine the effects from an intervention
PretestChose a group of children
Intervention Posttest
PretestChose a group of children
Intervention Posttest
PretestChose a group of children
Intervention
PosttestNo intervention/irrelevant intervention
Randomize the children in a training and an intervention group
Posttest
Pretest
Study:
A syntehesis of meta-analyses
Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg & Hulme, work in progress.
MethodSystematic search for reviews of educational interventions that have used a quantitative summary of results after 1998
The meta-analysis had to examine an intervention that could in some way inform about amelioration of difficulties related to: Decoding, reading comprehension, language skills, mathematic skills, general learning disorders, attention/hyperactivity, other behavioral/emotional problems or bullying.
The meta-analysis had to provide a mean effect size of an academic achievement or behavioral outcome that was based on a group design (i.e. meta-analyses purely based on single case studies were excluded)
70 meta-analyses included, 3145 single studies
Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg & Hulme, work in progress.
Differences in mean effect size for different designs
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
RCT QED with control group
No control group
Mea
n ef
fect
siz
e in
met
a-an
alys
es
Only 233 of the 3145 intervention studies were randomised controlled trials.
Serious methodological weaknesses, studies not suited to conclude about
intervention effects
5. Effects from interventions targeting reading comprehension or underlying components of
reading comprehension
A. Interventions targeting reading comprehension directly
Clarke, Snowling, Truelove og Hulme (2010) Compared three interventions for 160 children in 4th grade.
Selected on the basis of a reading comprehension screening of 1200 children.
Intervention:1. Linguistic comprehension
2. Reading comprehension 3. Combined
-Vocabulary (60 new words)-Narratives-Oral language use-Listening comprehension
-Meta-cognitive strategies (repeated reading, thinking aloud, visualisation) -Use of these strategies when reading text and in questions -Inferences, rcognise and use- Narratives and txt production
A combination (50/50 %).
Results
Figure from the paper:
B. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through Domain
General Cognitive Skills
Effects from computerised working memory training
Study
Redick, Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (work in progress). 2012: 23 studies
New study: 82 studies with 102 independent experiments
NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6NARA T1
Morpheme Generation
Syntactic Skills
Vocabulary Width
Inference Skills TOWRE A TOWRE B
Listening Recall
Backward Digit Recall
Vocabulary Definitions
Vocab. Width
Residual
Syntac. Skills
Residual
Morph. Gen..
Residual
Inf. Skills Residual
Vocab. Def.
Residual
Linguistic Comprehension
Word Decoding
Working Memory
Reading Comprehension
Initial Status
Reading Comprehension
Early Growth
Reading Comprehension
Later Growth
3.55**
2.21**.735*1.02**
.614**
-.20**
.622*
.058*
ResultsDecoding
Studies
Treated controls
Untreated controls
Mean effect size d immediatly after training
Verbal abilities
StudiesMean effect size d immediatly after training
Treated controls
Untreated controls
Reading comprehensionStudies Mean effect size d immediatly after
trainingTreated controls
Untreated controls
Similar findings for auditory processing training
C. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through decoding/phonological awareness
Numerous of well controlled studies have shown that phonological awareness in combination
with letter knowledge training can improve word decoding skills………..
Unfortunatly, not that many have reported transfer effects to standardised tests of reading comprehension
10 studies met inclusion criteria for word decoding. Effects were moderate: 0.47 SD better (95% CI 0.06 to 0.88)
Only three studies reported data on transfer effects to reading comprehension: 0.14 SD better (95% CI -0.46 to 0.74)
RCTs that combine phonological awareness/letter knowledge and vocabulary
intervention shows promising effects on reading comprehension
Wolff, 2011(d = 0.41, lasted at
follow up)
D. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through
vocabulary/linguistic comprehension
Linguistic comprehension intervention
Three times a week, (2 x 45 minutes, 1 x 10 min individually).
Rogde, Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg (submitted)
Dialogical readingNarrative skills
Expressive language tasks
Vocabulary instruction
115 second language learners randomised in two groups. Training group received 20 weeks of intervention
Vocabulary embedded in the training program
0
1
2 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Group CONTROL
Group TRAINING
d = 0.53** immediatly after training, d = 0.44* follow up
Distal measures: Do the effects of training transfer to standardized tests of expressive language?
0
1
2 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Group CONTROL
Group TRAINING
0
1
2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Group CONTROL
Group TRAINING
d = 0.51** immediatly after training, d = 0.28 (p = 0.064) follow up
Distal measures: Do the effects of training transfer to standardized tests of receptive language?
0
1
2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Group CONTROL
Group TRAINING
0
1
2 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Group CONTROL
Group TRAINING
d = 0.02 immediatly after training, d = 0.06 follow up
My talk1. The foundation of reading comprehension 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia3. To examine the effects from an intervention4. Effects from interventions directly targeting reading comprehension 5. Effects from interventions targeting underlying components of reading comprehension (general cognitive processes, decoding, vocabulary).
Take-home message 1From family risk studies of dyslexia it is clear that children with dyslexia have impared word decoding and reading comprehension skills. From an early age they also have poor phonological awareness and often also broader language skills.
From longitudinal studies we know that vocabulary, grammar skills and word decoding are uniqly related to the growth in reading comprehension.
Thus, for interventions to be succsessfull they should focus on these areas.
Take-home message 2
Effects on reading comprehension can be obtained by interventions either focusing on reading comprehesion directly (strategies etc), through linguisitc comprehension/vocabulary or through decoding/phonological awareness. But…Effects are not easily obtained. Requires hard and systematic work over time.
Take-home message 3
Reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of literacy. Therefore more studies should focus on this and measure this with standardised tests that has good psychometric properties.
There is a great need in education for high quality randomised intervention studies. Many studies have used poor designs, too few participants and interventions lacking a theoretical and empirical rationale. This has given us misleading results and lead us astray.
Foto: Kathrine Nordli, «Airborne»
Thank you for the attention!