KU Center for Research on Learning

KU Center for Research on Learning

Images ok bike riders from the STRUCTURE Your Reading book cover representing the 3 steps in the strategy.



Results of a Two-Year Study on the Effectiveness of STRUCTURE Your Reading

Download this profile (PDF)

Dr. Barbara J. Ehren, University of Central Florida


Methods
Participants (N = 265)
Year One (N=166)
Students across sixth, seventh, and eighth grades were randomly assigned to treatment and control inclusion language arts classes in a suburban middle school in a medium-sized school district in the U.S. Inclusion classes are defined as those general education classes following the regular curriculum standards for the grade in which students with disabilities are enrolled. Randomization procedures accounted for equivalent numbers of SWDs in each of the classes.

Year Two (N=176)
The Year Two study kept the rising seventh- and eighth-grade Year One classes of students remaining at the school intact for the next grade and added two new sixth-grade classes (N=60). In addition, students new to the school were randomly assigned to the seventh- and eighth-grade classes (N=39), and 29 students either moved to another school or class.

STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.
STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.
STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.


Measures
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) (Touchstone Applied Science Associates [TASA], 1995), a group-administered untimed test that is designed for students in grades six through 12 and over. It assesses how well students are able to reason with prose materials, including fiction and nonfiction passages.

Metacognition in Reading Inventory (MIRI), an informal inventory validated in pilot studies. Scoring criteria have been specified and inter-rater reliability measures have consistently been at .90 or higher. It is group administered and consists of a worksheet used by students to record information in two areas: (a) self-questioning before, during, and after reading and (b) use of strategies before, during, and after reading a passage. It employs two different 400-word expository passages.

Procedures
Teachers
For Year One, a team of one general education teacher and one special education teacher who co-taught a language arts class in each of grades six, seven, and eight volunteered to learn and implement SYR. Another team served as controls at each grade, teaching reading in their customary fashion. In Year Two, the teaching teams for grades seven and eight were the same, with a different team in the sixth-grade treatment class. One special education teacher in the study, a certified SIM professional developer, served as the on-site facilitator. Participating treatment teachers received six hours of initial training on the SYR protocol with approximately nine additional hours of on-site follow-up support from the investigator, including fidelity checks.

Intervention
Treatment class teachers implemented SYR in their inclusive language arts classes over a 12 week period during the regular school year. The SYR protocol is organized in 17 phases of instruction, each with a targeted outcome that guides the pace of instruction, designed to meet the needs of students. The SYR packaging strategy has eight steps, employing the mnemonic “STRUCTURE” to prompt students through the strategic reading process.

Each step has a self-questioning prompt and strategic action associated with it. The protocol incorporates the eight Stages of Acquisition and Generalization of SIM Learning Strategies (KUCRL) as well as the Cue, Do, Review sequence of SIM Content Enhancement Routines (KUCRL).

STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.

Analysis
Analysis of Covariance (Test of equality of means at posttest adjusted for pretest scores) was used in analyzing data. Effect sizes using Hedges g were calculated for p values <.25. However, in interpreting results, effect sizes associated with p values <.05 were considered. Analysis for high and low achievers combined grades, as did the analysis for special education (SPED) and learning disabilities (LD) subgroups.

Results

STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.

In Year One, the sixth-grade Control Group performed better on DRP than the Treatment Group, but not significantly so and with small effect size. The sixth-grade Treatment Group had significantly better Questioning and Strategies with large effect sizes than the Control Group. The seventh-grade Treatment Group had significantly better Strategies (medium effect). The eighth-grade Treatment Group had significantly better questioning with large effect size.

STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.

In Year Two, seventh-graders in the Treatment Group for two years had significantly better Questioning with a medium to large effect. The eighth-graders in general (the whole group and those in treatment for two years) had significantly better DRP, Questioning, and Strategies scores with large to very large effect sizes.

STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.
STRUCTURE Your Reading data table.

• Hedges g

High achievers in the Treatment Group had significantly better DRP scores with medium effect size and significantly better Questioning with large effect size after two years. Low achievers in the Treatment Group had significantly better Questioning with medium effect size after one year; they had significantly better DRP scores with large effect size and significantly better Questioning with very large effect size after two years. Adolescents in special education (SPED) in the Treatment Group had significantly better Strategies with medium effect size after one year and significantly better Strategies with large effect size after two years. Adolescents with learning disabilities (LD) after one year had significantly better Questioning with medium effect size and Strategies with large effect size.



Page 2 of 3 pages for this article  < 1 2 3 >