READING RESEARCH

Reading Research for Students with LD: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Outcomes

Reading Research for Students with LD: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Outcomes

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Reading difficulty is one of the most significant problems experienced by children identified with learning disabilities (LO). Reading underlies their performance in most academic domains (e.g., Berninger, 1994; Bishop& Adams, 1990; Bruck, 1990; Ehri, 1994; Guthrie, VanMeter, McMann, & Wigfield, 1996), as well as their adjustments to most school activities (e.g., Byrne, Freebody, & Gates, 1992; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Stanovich, 1986). Over the last 30 years there have been several conceptual shifts, as well as paradigm debates, regarding what underlies reading problems in children with LO, which in turn raised questions about the best instructional intervention for remediating such problems. In response to some of these questions, the purpose of this article was to synthesize the empirical evidence derived from research on reading intervention for students with LO.

Discussion

There are two reasons for the current synthesis, one practical and the other theoretical. In terms of practice, because of the diversity of processing difficulties attributed to children with LO (e.g., Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Olson, Wise, Johnson, & Ring, 1997; Shankweiler & Crain, 1986), there are divisions about the most effective method of teaching reading (see Adams & Bruck, 1993; Foorman, 1994; Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley & Rankin, 1994; and Vellutino et al., 1996, for a review). On one side of the continuum, several studies focus on phonological awareness, or the ability to code words into individually assigned units (e.g., Brown & Felton, 1990; Jones, Torgesen, & Sexton, 1987; Kennedy & Backman, 1993; Vellutino et al., 1996). From these data the case has been made that a revision in teaching methods is called for nationwide in which current context-based reading instruction is re-placed with highly structured, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonological rules and other applications to print.

On the other side of the continuum are those who suggest that reading has meaning within the context of language (see Adams & Bruck, 1993; Poorman, 1994; Frederiksen & Warren, 1987; and Pressley & Rankin, 1994, for a comprehensive review of these diverse orientations). It is assumed that (a) research showing generalization of isolated-word interventions to reading fluency and comprehension is limited (e.g., Aaron, Frantz, & Manges, 1990; Kendall & Hood, 1979; Pflaum, 1980; then see Byrne et aI., 1992), and (b) the primary function of reading is extracting meaning from text (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994). Instruction is anchored on the premise that there is a strong link between reading acquisition and oral language acquisition and that when reading is taught; its meaning and purpose should be emphasized. Instruction is geared toward providing students with the information and metacognitive skills necessary for academic success through the use of self-monitoring and interactive dialogue (e.g., Bos & Anders, 1990; Johnson, Graham, & Harris, 1997; Palincsar & Brown, 1984,1988; Pressley, Brown, El-Dinary, & Allferbach, 1995; Wong, 1991; Wong & Jones, ...