the effects of reading interventions on social outcomes for elementary students with reading...

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 09:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming LearningDifficultiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

The Effects of ReadingInterventions on SocialOutcomes for ElementaryStudents with ReadingDifficulties: A SynthesisJeanne Wanzek a , Sharon Vaughn a , Ae-Hwa Kim b &Christie L. Cavanaugh ca The University of Texas at Austin , Texas, USAb Dankook University , Seoul, South Koreac The University of Texas at Austin , Texas, USAPublished online: 16 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Jeanne Wanzek , Sharon Vaughn , Ae-Hwa Kim & ChristieL. Cavanaugh (2006) The Effects of Reading Interventions on Social Outcomesfor Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties: A Synthesis, Reading &Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22:2, 121-138, DOI:10.1080/10573560500242192

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560500242192

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10573560500242192

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560500242192

expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE EFFECTS OF READING INTERVENTIONS ON SOCIALOUTCOMES FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS WITHREADING DIFFICULTIES: A SYNTHESIS

Jeanne WanzekSharon Vaughn

The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA

Ae-Hwa Kim

Dankook University, Seoul, South Korea

Christie L. Cavanaugh

The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA

Previous research studies examining the effects of reading interventionson social outcomes for five- to twelve-year-old students with reading dif-ficulties are synthesized. Twenty-seven studies published between 1975and 2002 met criteria for inclusion in this synthesis. Small, positiveeffects for several social outcomes are summarized. Reading interven-tions that implemented group interactive learning situations yieldedthe strongest effects on social outcomes for students; however, partici-pation in reading interventions yielded negative effects on measures ofattitude. Implications for researchers and teachers regarding social out-comes from reading interventions are highlighted.

Address correspondence to Jeanne Wanzek, The University of Texas at Austin, Vaughn

Gross Center for Reading & Language Arts, 1 University Station=D4900, Austin, TX 78712,

USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22: 121–138, 2006

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1057-3569 print=1521-0693 online

DOI: 10.1080/10573560500242192

121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Successful readers have a greater likelihood for continued success inlife than struggling readers (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). While thedefinition of ‘‘success in life’’ may be debatable, most would agreethat academic achievement and adequate social functioning areamong the descriptors used to define success. Perhaps the mostimportant factor in academic achievement is the ability to read andlearn from what is read. There may also be other benefits to experi-encing success in reading, such as improved self-esteem, positive self-concept, appropriate social skills, and overall social competence(Adams, 1990; Lyon, 1997).

Researchers estimate that approximately 80 percent of studentswho are identified as learning disabled exhibit significant problemsin reading or language-related skills affecting reading and writing(Kavale & Reese, 1992; Lyon, 2002; President’s Commission onExcellence in Special Education, 2002; U.S. Department of Edu-cation, 2000). Many of these students also experience difficultiesrelated to social competence or social functioning (Cornwall &Bawden, 1992; Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001; Kavale & Forness, 1996;Smith & Travis, 2001; Snow et al., 1998; Vaughn, Elbaum, Schumm,& Hughes, 1998). In fact, social functioning difficulties, such as a lackof peer acceptance, poor self-concept, low self-esteem, peer rejection,and low academic self-perceptions, are often cited in studies as chal-lenges faced by students with learning disabilities (Smith & Travis,2001; Vaughn et al., 1998). In a meta-analysis of social skill deficitsand interventions, an estimated 75% of students with learning diffi-culties received lower ratings of social skills than their peers withoutlearning difficulties (Kavale & Forness, 1996).

How the underlying factors of academic and social functioning arerelated is not yet fully established; however, researchers have estab-lished the prevalence of social functioning deficits among students withlearning difficulties or poor academic performance (Cornwall &Bawden, 1992; Hinshaw, 1992; O’Shaughnessy, Lane, Gresham, &Beebe-Frankenberger, 2003; Vaughn, McIntosh, & Spencer-Rowe,1991). Other research has indicated that for students with poor socialskills, the likelihood of experiencing peer rejection is greater (Haager& Vaughn, 1995; Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996), and interven-tions to improve rejection status have been less than successful(Vaughn, McIntosh, & Spencer-Rowe, 1991). Collectively, studentswith learning difficulties demonstrate poorer social functioning skillsthan their peers without difficulties, resulting in low social ratings byteachers, parents, peers, and self-ratings (Haager & Vaughn, 1995;Vaughn, Elbaum, & Boardman, 2001).

122 J. Wanzek et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

While we know much about the effectiveness of interventionson reading outcomes (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; Swanson,Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999; Torgesen et al., 1999), few empirical studieshave been conducted to examine the effects of reading interventionson social outcomes such as peer acceptance and self-concept. Thissuggests a need to explore and expand the research base that exam-ines the effects of reading interventions on social functioning tosubstantiate that the two areas can be impacted concurrently.

One of the reasons it is valuable to determine the effects of readinginterventions on social outcomes of students is the preliminary evi-dence suggesting academic interventions at the elementary levelmay be a more effective means of enhancing social outcomes for stu-dents than social interventions (see Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001). Theresults of a meta-analysis conducted by Elbaum and Vaughn (2001)revealed a mean weighted effect size for the effects of interventionson the self-concept for elementary students to be .12. Further, thegreatest contribution to the development of self-concept for elemen-tary students was through academic interventions, yielding an effectsize of .17 (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001). When specific interventionsaimed at the development of social functioning are implemented,the expected benefit of improved social outcomes would seem to bethe consequence. However, there is evidence to suggest that manysocial interventions do not yield the expected social outcomes(Kavale & Forness, 1996; Smith & Travis, 2001).

Even when instruction is explicit for the amelioration of social skilldeficits, the magnitude of effects is small and, at best, short-term, andthe results are not easily generalized across settings or behaviors(Kavale & Forness, 1996; Smith & Travis, 2001). Thus, it is valuableto determine the relative influence of academic interventions, specifi-cally reading based on social outcomes. Academic interventionsimplemented with students experiencing social and academic diffi-culties have resulted in improved reading and social outcomes (Laneet al., 2002; Prater, Serna, & Nakamura, 1999), providing a rationalefor focusing on academic interventions as a means to improve bothacademic and social outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from a synthesisconducted to examine the social outcomes from early reading inter-vention research. This synthesis was guided by the following researchquestion: how do early reading interventions influence the social out-comes for students at-risk for reading problems? In order to addressthis question, a systematic search of early reading interventions was

Social Outcomes of Reading Interventions 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

conducted for at-risk students, and those that provided social out-comes were identified.

METHOD

Selection of Studies

Studies were identified through a three-step process:

1. computer searches of PsycInfo and ERIC located studies pub-lished between the years June 1975 and June 2002. Keywordswere used (preschool, early childhood, young child, primary,elementary, kindergarten, learning disab, reading difficult,reading problem, dyslex, handicap, retard, autis, disab, delay, dis-order, impair, reading, interven, special education, mainstream,inclus, integrat, social, self-concept, behavior) in appropriatecombinations

2. a hand search was conducted of eleven major journals relatedto the topic for the years December 2000 through December2002

3. reference sections from three relevant literature reviews wereexamined (i.e., Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001; Kucan & Beck,1997; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999).

Criteria for inclusion in the synthesis were as follows:

1. Learning disabilities=reading difficulties. A study must includestudents with LD, reading disabilities, dyslexia, or reading dif-ficulties, with findings disaggregated for these groups.

2. Ages 5–12 (or Grades K–6). At least two-thirds of participants ineach study must be between the ages of 5–12 (or grades K–6).

3. Design. Group design studies (single-group or multiple-groupdesign) and single-subject design studies were included.

4. Independent variables. Studies included a reading interventionthat contained a broad intervention for which reading is a part(e.g., a social studies intervention—for which reading strategieswere included—combined social skills and reading inter-vention).

5. Dependent variables. Outcomes related to self-concept, peerinteractions, or problem behavior were measured.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

A total corpus of 27 intervention studies met predeterminedcriteria and all were published in refereed journals. Participatingstudents in the 27 studies included: 502 students with LD, 32 withdyslexia, 992 with reading difficulties, and 2069 average- or high-achieving students. Two studies included additional students notsufficiently described (Abikoff, Ganeles, Reiter, Blum, Foley, &Klein, 1988; Wirth, 1977).

Coding Procedures

An extensive coding sheet was developed and used to organizepertinent information from each intervention study. The pertinentinformation included participants (e.g., age, gender, exceptionality),methodology (e.g., research design, assignment), intervention andcomparison descriptions, measures, and findings. Inter-rater agree-ment was calculated separately for each category and reached 91%.Inter-rater agreement was calculated as the number of agreements div-ided by the number of agreements plus the number of disagreements.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

For treatment=comparison design studies, effect sizes d were calcu-lated as the difference between the mean post-test score of the inter-vention group minus the mean post-test score of the comparisongroup divided by the pooled standard deviation. For single group stu-dies, a standardized mean-change measure was used to calculateeffect sizes (Becker, 1988). For those studies that reported statisticallysignificant differences between groups at pre-test, a procedure byBryant and Wortman (1984) was used. When only a test statistic tor F were available, effect sizes were estimated by applying formulasby Rosenthal (1991) and Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984; d ¼ 2t=

pdf

and d ¼ 2p

F=p

df [error]). Effect sizes were calculated for non-significant results when sufficient data were available. According toCohen (1988), effect sizes can be interpreted as d ¼ 0.2 as small,d ¼ 0.5 as medium, and d ¼ 0.8 as a large effect.

RESULTS

A description of each study, including participants, purpose, inter-ventions, measurements, and effect sizes or descriptive findings, isprovided in two tables on our website, www.texasreading.org.Additional details regarding the results of the synthesis are alsoavailable on the website. Below is a summary of the findings


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

examining effects by type of intervention, type of measurement, andreading outcomes.

Effects by Type of Intervention

After considering all the interventions presented in the corpus of stu-dies, we categorized each study into one of four intervention types:group interactive learning, cross-age=peer tutoring, group remedialreading, or one-on-one remedial reading. Two studies could not bespecifically categorized and were classified as ‘‘other.’’ The corre-sponding findings are summarized below.

Group Interactive LearningGroup interactive learning includes interventions where students areresponsible for leading all or part of the lesson in a small group withother students. This includes cooperative learning and reciprocalteaching. Five studies examined the effects of group interactive learn-ing on social outcomes for students with reading difficulties or dis-abilities. Significant gains on selected outcomes of peer interactionsor social status for students with reading deficits were reported ineach study.

Four studies evaluated group interactive learning with comparisongroups of independent work or unstructured group work, while onestudy employed a control group of typical instruction. Group inter-active learning was associated with overall medium effects in twoof these studies (mean ES ¼ .37: Stevens & Slavin, 1995; ES ¼ .48:Gillies & Ashman, 2000). Two additional studies reported increasedsocial outcomes for students with LD in group interactive learningconditions on some measures (Armstrong, Johnson, & Balow,1981; Labercane & Battle, 1989). One single group study also foundpositive effects from pre-test to post-test for students working ininteractive groups (ES ¼ 2.62: Gallego, Duran, & Scanlon, 1990).

Cross-age=Peer TutoringCross-age=peer tutoring consists of interventions where studentswork in pairs to provide tutoring. One or both students can servein the role of the tutor. Tutors provide directions, questions, and=orfeedback to tutees. Cross-age tutoring occurs when each member ofthe pair is in a different grade level, and peer tutoring occurs whenboth members of the pair are in the same grade level. Five studiesexamined the effects of cross-age or peer tutoring on social outcomesfor students with reading deficits. Overall, small effects on social out-comes were found on several measures in these studies, but othermeasures resulted in no effects.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Four multiple group studies resulted in mixed findings. Two studiescited positive social effects of intervention (mean ES ¼ .23: Fuchs,Fuchs, Mathes, & Martinez, 2002; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hodges,& Mathes, 1994), while two studies found no effects on social out-comes (Eiserman, 1988; Top & Osguthorpe, 1987). A single-subjectstudy also reported positive increases in self-concept from baselineto intervention for all three students participating in cross-agetutoring (Giesecke, Cartledge, & Gardner, 1993).

Group Remedial ReadingGroup remedial reading is reading instruction for students strugglingwith reading that is provided by a teacher to more than one studentat a time. This includes small group and whole class instruction.Instruction may consist of phonological awareness training, readingskill instruction, guided oral reading, and=or strategy instruction.Six studies examined reading instruction in small groups (Gettinger,1982; Lane, 1999; Lane, O’Shaughnessy, Lambros, Gresham, &Beebe-Frankenberger, 2001; O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000;Smith & Eason, 1988; Wirth, 1977), and two studies reported oninstruction with whole-class grouping (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher,Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn,2000). In general, studies examining interventions with small groupsfound positive gains on social outcomes from pre-test to post-test.

In one study, the implementation of several reading instructionalmethods supported by researchers resulted in moderate decreases ofinappropriate behavior when compared to a group receiving typicalinstruction without research support (mean ES ¼ �.51: Foormanet al., 1998). However, no differences were found between groupson a measure of self-competence. Two additional studies analyzeddata with a comparison group and reported no effects for treatment(mean ES ¼ �.05: O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000) or effects infavor of the control group (ES ¼ �.83: Lane, 1999).

Studies examining data from pre-test to post-test reported positiveresults for most participants on measures of self-esteem (p < .02:Smith & Eason, 1988) and achievement responsibility (p < .02:Wirth, 1977) as well as decreases in problem behavior (Gettinger,1982; Lane et al., 2001). However, a final study reported small, nega-tive effects on self-concept and attitude (mean ES ¼ � .19: Schummet al., 2000).

One-on-One Remedial ReadingOne-on-one remedial reading is instruction for students strugglingwith reading provided to one student by one teacher, tutor, or parent.This includes Reading Recovery, reading skill instruction (e.g., word


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

reading, phonics), guided oral reading, and=or strategy instruction.Seven studies examined the effects of one-on-one reading instructionfor students with reading problems: five of these studies reportedoverall positive effects on social outcomes (Abikoff et al., 1988; Buck,Warr-Leeper, & Evans, 1988; Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Collins &Matthey, 2001; Traynelis-Yurek & Hansell, 1993), while two studiesfound negative effects on self-concept (Chapman et al., 2001;Rumbaugh & Brown, 2000).

Other StudiesJenkins et al. (1994) described an intervention that incorporated threeof the previous interventions: group interactive learning for all stu-dents, cross-age tutoring=peer tutoring, and small group readinginstruction as needed. The mean effect size for social=behavioral out-comes in this study when compared with a control school of typicalinstruction was �.29, suggesting an overall decrease in social=behavioral outcomes. An additional study (Westervelt, Johnson,Westervelt, & Murrill, 1998) investigated remedial reading instructionfor students with dyslexia without specifying whether the instructionwas one-on-one or group. This instruction yielded a high pre-test topost-test effect for students receiving intervention (ES ¼ .89).

Effects by Type of Measure

Several types of measures were utilized in the corpus of studies. Thefindings are summarized for each measurement category.

Self-concept=Perceived Ability MeasuresSelf-concept and perceived ability were measured by questionnairesand=or scales in fifteen studies. Several studies found significantchanges in self-concept after intervention. Small effect sizes wereobtained in two studies (ES ¼ .19: Collins & Matthey, 2001; meanES ¼ .31: Stevens & Slavin, 1995). Furthermore, significant differ-ences on measures of self-esteem were reported in two additionalstudies (Eiserman, 1988; p < .01: Labercane & Battle, 1989); how-ever, Eiserman (1988) included average-achieving students as wellas students with LD. Increases in self-concept were also reported infive single-group studies, with one study yielding a large effect (meanES ¼ .79: Westervelt et al., 1998).

No effects or negative effects were found in four studies measuringself-concept (ES ¼ �.61: Chapman et al., 2001; mean ES ¼ 0:Foorman et al., 1998; mean ES ¼ �.13: Rumbaugh & Brown,2000; mean ES ¼ .04: Schumm et al., 2000). Likewise, two studies


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

reported no significant effects on self-esteem for students with LDafter intervention (Abikoff et al., 1988; Top & Osguthorpe, 1987).

Peer Interaction MeasuresThree studies examined interactions between students with readingdifficulties or disabilities and their peers. Positive results were foundon all measures of peer interaction. One single-group study foundlarge effects (ES ¼ 2.62: Gallego et al., 1990), while small, positiveeffects were reported in a multiple-group study measuring verbalcontributions made during group interactive work (mean ES ¼ .22;Gillies & Ashman, 2000). A single subject study (Lane et al., 2001)reported decreases in negative social interactions on the playgroundfor five of seven students.

Attitude MeasuresFive studies examined students’ attitudes towards reading or schoolwith questionnaires or scales. Large increases in home reading atti-tude were reported for students receiving parent tutoring from par-ents participating in individual training in comparison to parentstrained as a group (ES ¼ 1.71: Collins & Matthey, 2001). One studyalso reported one treatment group (typical basal instruction withresearcher support) had improved attitudes towards reading; how-ever, there were no significant differences in attitude reported forany other treatment groups in this study (Foorman, 1998).

Conversely, decreases in positive attitudes towards school werereported in two studies (Eiserman, 1988; mean ES ¼ �.30: Schummet al., 2000). No effects were found for an after-school reading inter-vention (mean ES ¼ �.01: Stevens & Slavin, 1995). Overall, the atti-tudes toward reading or academics for students receiving schoolinterventions declined or remained unchanged over time.

Social Status=Peer RelationsSeven studies examined the social status or peer relations of studentswith reading disabilities or difficulties. Peer nominations or rankingswere used for measurement. Generally, social status improved forstudents receiving intervention. The effects in three studies rangedfrom small to large (mean ES ¼ .23: Fuchs et al., 2002; meanES ¼ .23: O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000; mean ES ¼ .81: Stevens& Slavin, 1995).

Increases were also reported in peer characteristic ratings of studentswith LD (Armstrong et al., 1981) and peer attitudes toward studentswith reading difficulties (p < .05: Coie & Krehbiel, 1984). In contrast,two studies reported effects in favor of the comparison groups(mean ES ¼ �.29: Jenkins et al., 1994; ES ¼ �.97: Lane, 1999), and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

a study by Eiserman (1988) found no statistically significant differenceson peer measures of acceptance for students with LD.

Academic ResponsibilityTwo studies examined the effects of reading interventions on stu-dents’ perceived level of responsibility for academic outcomes. Insig-nificant effects (Abikoff et al., 1988) as well as significant effects(p < .05: Wirth, 1977) were reported. These results are inconclusivepartly due to the small number of studies measuring academicresponsibility.

Behavior MeasuresEight studies measured the effects of reading interventions on beha-vioral outcomes. Four studies used teacher report scales of behavior,three studies used direct observations of behavior, and one used ateacher rating scale as well as a parent rating of homework behavior.Studies using direct observations of behavior found overall positiveeffects. Studies using teacher report scales found mixed effects.

Small, positive effects were found for two studies employing directobservations (mean ES ¼ .15 and .46), while moderate decreases ininappropriate classroom behavior were reported in one study (meanES ¼ �.51). Additionally, two single-subject studies utilizing obser-vations found decreases in negative classroom behavior during andafter intervention. Alternatively, three studies using teacher reportsof behavior found no significant effects (Abikoff et al., 1988) ornegative effects (ES ¼ �.69: Lane, 1999; mean ES ¼ �.33:O’Shaughnessy & Swanson, 2000).

Effects by Reading Outcomes

Thirteen studies reported reading outcomes as well as social out-comes. Of these thirteen studies, four had small mean effects in read-ing, four had medium effects, and five had large mean effects. Effectsizes from an additional seven studies could not be calculated. Thesestudies are described at the end of this section. With few exceptions,reading outcomes and social outcomes were similar.

Three studies reporting small reading effects or no effects gener-ated negative social effects (mean ES ¼ �.83 to �.19). Likewise,three studies with medium reading effects also revealed mediumsocial effects. One study reporting medium reading effects resultedin no social effects (Top & Osguthorpe, 1987).

Three of the studies with large reading effects yielded large socialeffects (mean ES ¼ .89 to 2.62), and a fourth study reported increasedstudent self-esteem following intervention (Buck et al., 1988). However,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

three of these studies utilized single-group designs, and therefore thegains due specifically to intervention are unclear. One additional studywith slightly different outcomes did report large reading outcomes yetproduced only small social effects (mean ES ¼ .28: O’Shaughnessy &Swanson, 2000) for two early intervention groups compared to amathematics control group. A study without sufficient informationfor calculating effect sizes found mixed results for the reading outcomesof completion and accuracy of assignments (Armstrong et al., 1981).These mixed results were also found for the social outcomes of socialstatus, friendships, and negative behavior.

Three additional group studies and three single-subject studiesfound matching results in their reading and social outcomes. Overallimprovement on both outcomes was reported in three studies (Coie &Krehbiel, 1984; Gettinger, 1982; Giesecke et al., 1993), while theother three found no significant differences in either outcome(Abikoff et al., 1988; Labercane & Battle, 1989) or effects for onlysome students (Lane et al., 2001).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this article was to examine the effects of reading inter-ventions on social outcomes for students with reading difficulties.Overall, there is some evidence that social outcomes are positivelyassociated with reading interventions, but further research is neededin this area. Considering the findings from studies with treatmentand comparison groups as the best indicator of effectiveness, small,positive effects were reported for the majority of studies; however,several studies reported no effects or negative effects. Gains in socialoutcomes realized in single-group and single-subject studies alsopoint to the possibility that reading interventions may have the capa-bility of positively affecting social outcomes, but replication of theseinterventions using high quality designs with control groups isneeded.

Interventions using group interactive learning yielded positiveresults on social outcomes.The opportunity for students to work withtheir peers, as is provided with group interactive learning, appears tohave a positive affect on students’ social outcomes. This suggests thatteachers seeking practices to enhance social outcomes as well as read-ing outcomes may want to incorporate the practice of group interac-tive learning in their classrooms.

Although cross-age and peer tutoring have been shown to be effec-tive reading interventions in previous research (Dupaul & Eckert,1998; Gersten, 1998), the lack of improved social outcomes from peer


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

tutoring studies may indicate that peer tutoring is not associated withimproved social outcomes for students with reading disabilities or dif-ficulties. However, of the five studies implementing cross-age=peertutoring, three did not measure reading outcomes and one yieldedsmall reading outcomes. Thus, it is difficult to assess from these stu-dies whether success in reading does in fact have a positive effect onsocial outcomes. Additional support for continuing research on socialoutcomes from intensive tutoring interventions comes from a syn-thesis conducted by Elbaum and Vaughn (2001), in which academi-cally oriented interventions at the elementary level were associatedwith the highest effect sizes on self-concept measures. Thus, thereciprocal relationship between academic and social success seemsto warrant further research.

Despite the positive results for group interactive learning, the inter-ventions included in this synthesis revealed an overall negative affecton students’ attitudes towards reading, academics, and school. Infour of five studies measuring attitudes, students involved in theinterventions had either no change or a decline in their attitudes frompre-test to post-test. Though relatively few studies measured attitudetoward reading, the results suggest that even reading interventionsteachers may label as ‘‘successful’’ based on reading gains alone dolittle to improve student attitudes about their abilities. Perhaps as stu-dents continue in these interventions and become more successfulwith reading, their attitudes may improve. It may very well be thatattitudes are only influenced over time and as a result of considerablesuccess.

It should also be noted that although many post-test measures ofsocial outcomes showed positive results, students with reading dis-abilities participating in the interventions continued to score belowthe average- and high-achieving students on social status, eventhough their relative social status from pre-test to post-test improved.While it is promising that participation in a reading intervention maybe associated with improved social status, considerably less is knownabout the extent to which these improved scores are associatedwith real improvements in the quality of students’ peer and socialrelationships.

As this investigation sought to understand the influence on socialoutcomes for students participating in reading interventions, it isimportant to examine the relationship between the reading outcomesof an intervention and the social outcomes. The studies reviewed inthis synthesis reveal a fairly consistent pattern between performanceon reading and social outcomes-interventions yielding low effects inreading and social outcomes, or in some cases negative effects. Seven


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

of nine studies with medium or large reading effects also foundmedium to large effects on social outcomes. However, all of the stu-dies with large reading outcomes and large social outcomes weresingle-group studies. Thus, although successful reading interventionsseem to be associated with improved social outcomes as well, the cur-rent corpus of studies is limited in both size and scope, and furtherresearch in this area is required.

While this summary of the results indicates several caveats aboutinterpretation, some patterns of positive effects from reading inter-ventions on social outcomes resulted. To better understand the socialoutcomes from this study, findings were compared from thissynthesis with those from other syntheses in which the focus of theintervention was social=behavioral rather than reading. In previousmeta-analyses of interventions where the purpose of the interventionwas to improve social outcomes, overall effects of .18 (Hattie, 1992)and .21 (Forness & Kavale, 1996) were noted. Therefore, the smallsocial effects found in many of the reading interventions examinedhere are similar to effects found on social outcomes through socialinterventions. If both types of interventions have similar results onsocial outcomes, yet the reading interventions also have positiveeffects on reading, it may be more efficient to focus efforts on design-ing reading interventions that capitalize on practices associated withsocial outcomes as well.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Many of the studies represented in this synthesis have limitations thatqualify our findings. For example, several studies failed to includedesign components and=or information crucial to ascertaining theeffects related specifically to the intervention as well as the magnitudeof the effects. Further, high quality research is needed to untanglewhether social outcomes can be positively affected by reading inter-ventions and under what conditions. Of the studies reviewed in thissynthesis, eighteen included a comparison group of students. Of thesestudies, ten found positive or significant results on some social out-comes for students with reading difficulties or disabilities. A largercorpus of studies with comparison groups will make the possibilityof ascertaining what intervention conditions are related to improvedsocial outcomes more clear.

Another factor that may have resulted in the mixed findings seen inthis synthesis is the sensitivity of the measurements used. Self-conceptand self-esteem are broad constructs that are both difficult to mea-sure and not readily susceptible to change. Small gains are certainly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

a possibility, but whether we currently have measures that cancapture subtle changes in self-esteem is questionable. In contrast,overt behaviors such as classroom disruptions or peer interactionsare more easily recorded through systematic observation, and thusthese changes in behavior can be documented. This may explainwhy observation measures yielded more positive results. Similarly,although attitude scales are the primary indicators available forexamining student beliefs towards reading, only two studies measur-ing attitude reported the technical adequacy of the measures, and oneof the measures demonstrated low reliability. A variety of reliablemeasures as well as interventions of a longer duration may help tobetter measure the social effects of successful reading interventions.

Findings from this synthesis suggest a relationship between read-ing interventions and improved outcomes in social areas. However,this research base is limited, and considerable further research withrandomized treatment and comparison groups is needed to beginuntangling the interventions best suited for these outcomes. Studentswith reading disabilities are often plagued by difficulties with socialfunctioning (Kavale & Forness, 1996). Therefore, there are multiplebenefits from tackling both their academic and social problems.The ability to establish effective reading interventions that can alsohave a positive impact on students’ social functioning is a loftytask; however, the current research examining these outcomes showsvalue in pursuing research on interventions that improve bothacademic and social outcomes for students with significant readingproblems.

REFERENCES

�Abikoff, H., Ganeles, D., Reiter, G., Blum, C., Foley, C., & Klein, R. G. (1988).

Cognitive training in academically deficient ADDH boys receiving stimulant

medication. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 411–432.

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press.�Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. (1981). Effects of cooperative vs. indi-

vidualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between learning-

disabled and normal-progress elementary school students. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 6, 102–109.

Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Jour-

nal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 257–278.

�Studies included in synthesis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Bryant, F. B. & Wortman, P. M. (1984). Methodological issues in the meta-analysis

of quasi-experiments. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 24, 5–24.�Buck, M. J., Warr-Leeper, G. A., & Evans, B. (1988). A home tutoring program

designed to improve reading skills and self-esteem of poor readers. Reading

Improvement, 25, 202–213.�Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the

reading recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological-

processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context.

Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 141–176.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.�Coie, J. D. & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status f

low-achieving, socially rejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465–1478.�Collins, L. & Matthey, S. (2001). Helping parents to read with their children: Evalu-

ation of an individual and group reading motivation programme. Journal of

Research in Reading, 24, 65–81.

Cornwall, A. & Bawden, H. N. (1992). Reading disabilities and aggression: A criti-

cal review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 281–288.

Dupaul, G. J. & Eckert, T. L. (1998). Academic interventions for students with

attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder: A review of the literature. Reading and

Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 59–82.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. Va., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., &

Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to

read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading

Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.�Eiserman, W. D. (1988). Three types of peer tutoring: Effects on the attitudes of

students with learning disabilities and their regular class peers. Journal of Learn-

ing Disabilities, 21, 249–252.

Elbaum, B. & Vaughn, S. (2001). School-based interventions to enhance the self-

concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School

Journal, 101, 303–329.�Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P.

(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure

in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

Forness, S. R. & Kavale, K. A. (1996). Treating social skill deficits in children with

learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of the research. Learning Disability Quar-

terly, 19, 2–13.�Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. A. (2002). Preliminary evi-

dence on the social standing of students with learning disabilities in PALS and

no-PALS classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 205–215.�Gallego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J. (1990). Interactive teaching and

learning: Facilitating learning disabled students’ transition from novice to expert.

National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39, 311–319.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with

learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13,

162–170.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

�Gettinger, M. (1982). Improving classroom behaviors and achievement of

learning disabled children using direct instruction. School Psychology Review,

11, 329–336.�Giesecke, D., Cartledge, G., & Gardner, R. (1993). Low-achieving students as

successful cross-age tutors. Preventing School Failure, 37, 34–43.�Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on

students with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. The Journal

of Special Education, 34, 19–27.

Haager, D. & Vaughn, S. (1995). Parent, teacher, peer, and self-reports of the social

competence of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

28, 205–215.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and

aggression: Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 60, 893–903.�Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, L. M., & Troutner,

N. M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom

ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60,

344–358.

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226–237.

Kavale, K. A. & Reese, J. H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa

profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94.

Kucan, L. & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension

research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational

Research, 67, 271–299.�Labercane, G. & Battle, J. (1989). Cognitive processing strategies, self-esteem, and

reading comprehension of learning disabled students. B.C. Journal of Special

Education, 11, 169–185.�Lane, K. L. (1999). Young students at risk for antisocial behavior: The utility of

academic and social skills interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders, 7, 211–222.�Lane, K. L., O’Shaughnessy, T. E., Lambros, K. M., Gresham, F. M., & Beebe-

Frankenberger, M. E. (2001). The efficacy of phonological awareness training

with first-grade students who have behavior problems and reading difficulties.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 219–231.

Lane, K., Wehby, J., Menzies, H., Gregg, R., Doukas, G., & Munton, S. (2002).

Early literacy instruction for first-grade students at-risk for antisocial behavior.

Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 438–458.

Lyon, G. R. (1997). The right to read and the responsibility to teach. The Center for

Development and Learning. Available at http:==www.cdl.org=resources=reading room=right to read.html. Accessed May 2, 2003.

Lyon, G. R. (2002, June 6). On learning disabilities and early intervention strategies.

Statement for the Subcommittee on Education Reform Committee on Education

and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Available at


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

http:==www.cdl.org=resources=reading room=strategies.html. Accessed April 23,

2004.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read. An evidence-based assess-

ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading

instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.

O’Shaughnessy, T. E., Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E.

(2003). Children placed at risk for learning and behavioral difficulties. Remedial

and Special Education, 24, 27–35.�O’Shaughnessy, T. E. & Swanson, H. L. (2000). A comparison of two reading inter-

ventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33,

257–277.

Prater, M. A., Serna, L., & Nakamura, K. K. (1999). Impact of peer teaching on the

acquisition of social skills by adolescents with learning disabilities. Education and

Treatment of Children, 22, 19–35.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE). (2002). A

new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Jessup,

Md.: USDOE, Education Publications Center. Available at http:==www.ed.gov=inits=commissionsboards=whspecialeducation=reports.html. Accessed April 24,

2004.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and

data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.�Rumbaugh, W. & Brown, C. (2000). The impact of reading recovery participation

on students’ self-concepts. Reading Psychology, 21, 13–30.�Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruc-

tion: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 477–488.�Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Hodges, J. P., & Mathes, P. G. (1994).

Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to classwide peer

tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 203–212.

Smith, S. W. & Travis, P. C. (2001). Conducting social competence research: Con-

sidering conceptual frameworks. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 360–369.�Smith, T. L. & Eason, R. L. (1988). Effects of a success-oriented reading and motor

program on self-concept of children referred for learning disability. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 67, 94.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.�Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on

students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational

Research Journal, 32, 321–351.

Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning

disabilities. New York: Guilford.�Top, B. L. & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1987). Reverse-role tutoring: The effects of handi-

capped students tutoring regular class students. The Elementary School Journal,

87, 413–423.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P.,

Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with

phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruc-

tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.�Traynelis-Yurek, E. & Hansell, T. S. (1993). Self-esteem of low achieving first grade

readers following instructional intervention. Reading Improvement, 30, 140–146.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on

the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,

DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., & Boardman, A. (2001). The social functioning of students

with learning disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9, 47–65.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). The effects of inclusion on the

social functioning of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 29, 598–608.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social outcomes

of students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 31, 428–436.

Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R., & Spencer-Rowe, J. (1991). Peer rejection is a stubborn

thing: Increasing peer acceptance of rejected students with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 83–88.�Westervelt, V. D., Johnson, D. C., Westervelt, M. D., & Murrill, S. (1998). Changes

in self-concept and academic skills during a multimodal summer camp program.

Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 191–212.�Wirth, S. (1977). Effects of a multifaceted reading program on self-concept.

Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 12, 33–40.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

11 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

the effects of reading interventions on social outcomes for elementary students with reading...

Documents