Digital vs. paper reading

A study published in the American Educational Research Journal compares reading processes and outcomes for pupils when reading a text from paper with the same text delivered on a touchscreen laptop.

Amanda P Goodwin and colleagues conducted the study with 371 pupils in grades 5–8 (Years 6–9) from three schools in an urban district in the southeastern US. Pupils were randomly assigned to two conditions: Condition A read the first section of a text on paper, and the second half digitally, whereas pupils in Condition B read the first part digitally and the second part on paper. The content in both conditions was identical. When reading on paper, pupils had access to highlighters, pens and sticky notes; when reading digitally, they had access to digital highlighters, annotating and dictionaries.

Results suggest that pupils highlight and annotate more when reading on paper vs. digital text. Also, reading on paper vs. digitally was slightly supportive of reading comprehension for the longer sections of text, although effect sizes were very small (odds ratio of 1.077).

Source: Digital versus paper reading processes and links to comprehension for middle school students (December 209), American Educational Research Journal

Effects of Word Generation on academic language, vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes

A study published in the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness reports on the impact of Word Generation on academic language, vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes for pupils in grades 4 to 7 (Years 5 to 8).

Word Generation (WG) is a vocabulary programme designed to teach academic vocabulary words through English, maths, science and social studies classroom activities. For this study, 7,725 fourth to seventh grade pupils from 25 schools in the northeast US were randomised within pairs to either treatment or business-as-usual control conditions. In treatment schools, the programme was implemented throughout the school year. In grades 4 and 5 (Years 5 and 6), this involved 12 ten-day long units of 45-50 minutes per day. For grades 6 and 7 (Years 7 and 8), the programme was implemented in six-week long units designed to take 45 minutes each day in science and social studies classes.

At the end of the first year, pupils in grades 4 and 5 also made improvements on their academic language skills (ES = +0.06), and in their reading comprehension at the end of the second year (ES = +0.15). Reading comprehension also improved at the end of the second year for pupils in grades 6 and 7 (ES = +0.10).

The study also showed gains on tests of the specific words emphasised in the programme, but these effects are considered potentially inflated.

Source: Experimental effects of Word Generation on vocabulary, academic language, perspective taking and reading comprehension in high-poverty schools (August 2019), Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12:3

The effect of linguistic comprehension training on language and reading comprehension

Kristin Rogde and colleagues from the Campbell Collaboration have completed a systematic review that examines the effects of linguistic comprehension teaching on generalised measures of language and reading comprehension skills. Examples of linguistic comprehension skills include vocabulary, grammar and narrative skills.

The authors searched literature dating back to 1986, and identified 43 studies to include in the review, including samples of both pre-school and school-aged participants. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experiments with a control group and a pre-post design were included.

Key findings of the review were as follows:

  • The linguistic comprehension programmes included in the review display a small positive immediate effect on generalised outcomes of linguistic comprehension.
  • The effect of the programmes on generalised measures of reading comprehension is negligible.
  • Few studies report follow-up assessment of their participants.

According to the authors, linguistic comprehension teaching has the potential to increase children’s general linguistic comprehension skills. However, there is variability in effects related to the type of outcome measure that is used to examine the effect of such instruction on linguistic comprehension skills.

Source: The effect of linguistic comprehension instruction on generalized language and reading comprehension skills: A systematic review (November 2019), Campbell Systematic Reviews

The impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills

This meta-analysis, published in Educational Research Review, explores whether shared reading interventions are equally effective across a range of study designs, across a range of different outcome variables, and for children from different socioeconomic status (SES) groups.

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria:

  • Must contain a universal and/or targeted shared book reading intervention.
  • Must include at least one control group.
  • Participants must be typically developing children ages seven years or younger.
  • Must not target multilingual populations and/or the acquisition of an additional language.
  • Must isolate the variable of interest (shared book reading).
  • Must report on objective quantitative measure of language ability.
  • Must provide sufficient data to calculate the effect size.

The results suggest that shared reading had an overall effect size of +0.19 on children’s language development. They also show that this effect was moderated by the type of control group used and was near zero in studies with active control groups (ES = +0.03). The meta-analysis also shows no differences across outcome variables or for SES.

Source: The impact of shared book reading on children’s language skills: A meta-analysis (September 2019), Educational Research Review, Volume 28

Improving the maths and reading skills of children in foster care

A study published in Oxford Review of Education evaluates the effects of TutorBright tutoring on the reading and maths skills of children in family foster care. TutorBright uses one-to-one, at-home tutoring with detailed instructor’s manuals and customised pupil workbooks. Children receive two one-hour tutoring sessions per week, on designated days of the week, for up to 50 hours of tutoring. Children in the waiting list control group were asked to continue with their schooling as usual and not seek additional tutoring or academic support during the school year, and were then offered the tutoring intervention at the end of the school year. TutorBright tutors all had experience with teaching or mentoring, and an undergraduate or master’s degree (completed or in progress).

For the randomised controlled trial, conducted by Andrea J Hickey and Robert J Flynn, child welfare workers nominated foster care children in Ontario, Canada, who met the following criteria: enrolled in grades 1–11 (Years 2–12), fluent in English, currently living in a foster-family setting, and judged likely to remain in care for the duration of the study. Thirty-four children were randomly assigned to tutoring, and 36 to a waiting-list control condition.

The results suggest that the tutored children made greater gains than those in the control group in reading fluency (effect size = +0.16), reading comprehension (ES = +0.34) and maths calculation (ES = +0.39).

Source: Effects of the TutorBright tutoring programme on the reading and mathematics skills of children in foster care: a randomised controlled trial (July 2019), Oxford Review of Education, 45:4

Results of an early literacy intervention to improve reading outcomes

Evidence for Learning in Australia has published an evaluation report of a randomised controlled trial of MiniLit, a small group, phonics-based programme for struggling Year 1 readers. The intervention is targeted at the bottom 25% of pupils struggling to read, and focuses on improving pupils’ literacy in five areas: phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The programme involved struggling readers from Year 1 classes in nine Australian primary schools located in New South Wales, and consisted of 80 one-hour lessons delivered four to five days per week over 20 weeks. The lessons were delivered in school outside of regular lessons by teachers to small groups of up to four pupils. A total of 237 pupils participated, of which 119 were allocated to the MiniLit intervention group and 118 to the control group. Pupils in the control group received the school’s usual learning support for struggling readers, which could include whole-class approaches and/or support programmes for struggling readers.

Overall, there was no evidence that MiniLit had any additional impact on pupils’ reading at 12 months, measured using the York Assessment of Reading Comprehension – Passage Reading (YARC-PR) tests compared to pupils receiving usual reading support (ES = -0.04). However, there were some positive effects for reading accuracy (ES = +0.13) and reading rate (ES = +0.06). There was also evidence of improvement in foundational reading skills at six months, particularly letter sound knowledge, which was also sustained at 12 months.

The researchers point out, however, that the findings were dependent on the quality of the MiniLit lessons which were provided to pupils. Schools were limited to 20 weeks’ duration, and in many cases, teachers reported that this length was not sufficient to complete the programme for all groups. They suggest that improving how MiniLit is implemented may lead to more positive outcomes; however, this requires further evaluation to determine.

Source: MiniLit: Learning impact fund: Evaluation report (2019). Independent report prepared by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the University of Melbourne for Evidence for Learning