• DOI:10.1598/RRQ.44.4.2
• Corpus ID: 18658467

Response to Slavin, Cheung, Groff, and Lake (2008). Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best‐Evidence Synthesis

@article{Greenleaf2009ResponseTS,
  title={Response to Slavin, Cheung, Groff, and Lake (2008). Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best‐Evidence Synthesis},
  author={Cynthia Greenleaf and Anthony J. Petrosino},
  journal={Reading Research Quarterly},
  year={2009},
  volume={44},
  pages={349-354}
}

• Cynthia Greenleaf, A. Petrosino
• Published 12 October 2009
• Psychology
• Reading Research Quarterly

Reading Research Quarterly • 43(3) • pp. 290–322 • dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4 • © 2008 International Reading Association Students who enter high school with poor literacy skills face long odds against graduating and going on to postsecondary education or satisfying careers. Joftus and Maddox-Dolan (2003) reported that in the United States, roughly 6 million secondary students read far below grade level and that approximately 3,000 students drop out of U.S. high schools every day. The secondary years provide a last chance for many students to build sufficient reading skills to succeed in their demanding courses (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Joftus, 2002). Even among students who do graduate from high school, inadequate reading skills are a key impediment to success in postsecondary education (American Diploma Project, 2004). Students who struggle with reading often lack the prerequisites to take academically challenging coursework that could lead to more wide reading and thus exposure to advanced vocabulary and content ideas (Au, 2000). The 2006 report by ACT, Inc., Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals About College Readiness in Reading, describes even more troubling This article systematically reviews research on the achievement outcomes of four types of approaches to improving the reading of middle and high school students: (1) reading curricula, (2) mixed-method models (methods that combine largeand small-group instruction with computer activities), (3) computer-assisted instruction, and (4) instructional-process programs (methods that focus on providing teachers with extensive professional development to implement specific instructional methods). Criteria for inclusion in the study were use of randomized or matched control groups, a study duration of at least 12 weeks, and valid achievement measures that were independent of the experimental treatments. A total of 33 studies met these criteria. The review concludes that programs designed to change daily teaching practices have substantially greater research support than those focused on curriculum or technology alone. Positive achievement effects were found for instructional-process programs, especially for those involving cooperative learning, and for mixed-method programs. The effective approaches provided extensive professional development and significantly affected teaching practices. In contrast, no studies of reading curricula met the inclusion criteria, and the effects of supplementary computer-assisted instruction were small.