Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Reading Instruction"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence-based reading instruction for English language learners in preschool through sixth grades: a meta-analysis of group design studies.
    (2009-08) Han, Insoon
    The purpose of the study was to synthesize research studies that examined reading instruction for English language learners (ELL) in preschool through sixth grades. Specific goals were to determine the availability of reading instruction for ELLs, the effects of that instruction, and which instructional programs can be considered evidence-based. An extensive search of the research studies identified 29 studies employing group design published in peer-reviewed journals since 1967, which yielded 44 samples with a total of 225 effect sizes. Findings revealed that at both tier 1 and 2, there are more than 10 instructional programs that address phonemic awareness and phonics instruction at preschool to 2nd grade levels, but there were no phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for third to sixth graders. The overall effect of reading instruction was moderate, with a mean ES of 0.50. HLM revealed that factors strengthen the effect were: English as a language of intervention; a session lasted 45 min or less; upper grade level; single grade; average or higher SES; and lower study quality. Three evidence-based or promising practices from 13 programs were identified; Keyword method, Proactive Reading and Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. The research community should continue to reinforce efforts to improve the quality of research while seeking strong support for rigorous research from policy makers to empower ELL students who are otherwise likely to be at-risk readers by providing them with evidence-based reading instruction.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Meta-analysis on the Effects of Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners
    (2020-12) Xiong, Ellina
    A meta-analysis of group studies and single-case design studies was conducted to examine the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction on vocabulary learning and reading comprehension for English Learners. Overall estimates indicate that vocabulary instruction promoted vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. The mean effect for vocabulary learning was g= 0.40 (CI95= 0.26-0.54, p< .001), a small to moderate effect. The mean effect for reading comprehension was g= 0.26 (CI95= 0.07-0.46, p= .01). Meta-regression was used to conduct moderator analyses, which indicated that differential effects were associated with methodological rigor, instructional programming, and outcome assessments at a statistically significantly level. Findings suggest that comprehensive interventions tend to produce larger effects, but that interventions do not require significant duration, frequency and intensity to produce positive effects. Direction for future research is suggested based on findings from moderator analyses.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Repeated Reading with and without Vocabulary Instruction: Outcomes for English Language Learners
    (2015-05) Brandes, Dana
    This study compares a repeated reading intervention with and without vocabulary instruction on the reading fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge of English Language Learners (ELLs). Third-grade ELLs (N=31) who were performing below grade level in reading completed one session of repeated reading (RR) and one session of repeated reading with vocabulary instruction (RRV). Using a within-subjects design, condition and passage order were counterbalanced across participants. Dependent measures included Curriculum-based Measures of Oral Reading (CBM-R), researcher-developed literal and inferential comprehension questions, and the Two-Questions Vocabulary Measure (TQVM; Kearns & Biemiller, 2011). Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant main effects of instruction for RRV with large effect sizes for comprehension (p < .001, g = .73) and vocabulary knowledge (p < .001, g = .98) but no statistically-significant differences for reading fluency or vocabulary word-reading accuracy. Results suggest RRV may be an effective intervention worth examining for longer durations and with larger samples of ELLs.