The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of peer–mediated versus teacher–directed reading intervention on the reading performance of high school sophomores. Participants (n = 57) from the lowest 25th percentile of their sophomore class in reading were assigned randomly to peer–mediated or teacher–directed intervention. Fifteen to sixteen 25–minute intervention sessions over 12 weeks included listening passage preview, retelling, and main idea questioning. Linear regression revealed statistically significant main effects of intervention on maze selection, with both treatment groups outperforming a nonequivalent control group (ES =. 69–1.00). There were no statistically significant differences on oral reading fluency or maze selection between the peer–mediated and teacher–directed groups. Participating in peer–mediated intervention and receiving more minutes of instruction were significantly associated with higher performance on the district reading assessment. Implications for allocating resources to tiered intervention in secondary schools are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: Review of the literature. Remedial & Special Education, 23, 300–316.
2.
BalfanzR., LegtersN., & JordonW. (2004). Catching up: Effect of the talent development ninth–grade instructional interventions in reading and mathematics in high–poverty high schools [Feature]. NASSP Bulletin, 88, 3–30.
3.
BiancarosaG., & SnowC. (2004). Reading next– a vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
CalhoonM. B. (2005). Effects of a peer–mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424–433.
5.
CalhoonM., SandowA., & HunterC. (2010). Reorganizing the instructional reading components: Could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to maximize middle school students with reading disabilities’ response to treatment? Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 57–85.
6.
ComptonD. L. (2006). How should “unresponsiveness” to secondary intervention be operationalized? It's all about the nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 170–173.
7.
DalyE. J.III, MartensB. K., BarnettD., WittJ. C., & OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
8.
DufreneB. A., ReisenerC. D., OlmiD. J., Zoder–MartellK., McNuttM. R., & HornD. R. (2010). Peer tutoring for reading fluency as a feasible and effective alternative in response to intervention systems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 239–256.
9.
ElliottS., DiPernaD., & ShapiroE. (n.d.). Academic intervention monitoring system. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Retrieved from www.aimsweb.com. Accessed March 17, 2011.
10.
EspinC., WallaceT., LembkeE., CampbellH., & LongJ. (2010). Creating a progress–monitoring system in reading for middle–school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high–stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 60–75.
11.
Faggella–LubyM., & DeshlerD. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 70–78.
12.
Faggella–LubyM., & WardwellM. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications of a tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 35–49.
13.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & BurishP. (2000). Peer–assisted learning strategies: An evidence–based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 85–91.
14.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & ComptonD. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22–28.
15.
FuchsL., FuchsD., & KazdanS. (1999). Effects of peer–assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 309–318.
16.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., MathesP. G., & SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer–assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
17.
GravesA., BrandonR., DuesberyL., McIntoshA., & PyleN. (2011). The effects of tier 2 literacy intstruction in sixth grade: Toward the development of a response–to–intervention model in middle school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 73–86.
18.
GravesA., DuesberyL., PyleN., BrandonR., & McIntoshA. (2011). Two studies of tier II literacy development: Throwing 6th graders a lifeline. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 641–661.
19.
GreenbergM. T., & WehbyJ. H. (1995). Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale. Fast Track: Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (Unpublished manual).
20.
Harcourt Educational Measurement (1996). Stanford achievement test series (9th ed). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
21.
HarrisR. E., Marchand–MartellaN., & MartellaR. C. (2000). Effects of a peer–delivered corrective reading program. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 21–36.
22.
HoweK. B., & ShinnM. M., (2002). Standard reading assessment passages for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
23.
JimersonS. R., BurnsM. K., & VanDerHeydenA. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
24.
KamilM. L., BormanG. D., DoleJ., KralC. C., SalingerT., & TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
25.
LeeJ., GriggW., & DonahueP. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007–496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics
26.
MaheadyL., MalletteB., & Harper (2006). Four classwide peer tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 65–89.
27.
MastropieriM., & ScruggsT. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities: 1976–96. Remedial & Special Education, 18, 197–214.
28.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
29.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2008). Adolescent literacy and older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 211–218.
30.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for the NWEA MAP and ALT assessments. Portland, OR: NWEA.
31.
ScammaccaN., RobertsG., VaughnS., EdmondsM., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC. K., et al. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta–analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
32.
SporerN., & BrunsteinJ. C. (2009). Fostering the reading comprehension of secondary school students through peer–assisted learning: Effects on strategy knowledge, strategy use, and task performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 289–297.
33.
SwansonH. L., & DeshlerD. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta–analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135.
34.
SwansonH. & HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component & composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–119.
35.
TichaR., EspinC., & WaymanM. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary–school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and maze selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 132–142.
36.
VaughnS., CirinoP. T., WanzekJ., WexlerJ., FletcherJ. M., & DentonC. A., et al. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
37.
VaughnS., FletcherJ. M., FrancisD. J., DentonC. A., WanzekJ., WexlerJ., CirinoP. T., BarthA. E., & RomainM. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338–345.
38.
VaughnS., GerstenR., & ChardD. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
39.
WanzekJ., VaughnS., RobertsG., & FletcherJ. (2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 73–87.
40.
WarrenS. F., FeyM. E., & YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 13, 70–77.
41.
WaymanM., WallaceT., WileyH. I., TicháR., & EspinC. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum–based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
42.
WeaverW. (2007). Defect. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
43.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2011). United States Department of Education.
