Comparing the effectiveness of two reciprocal reading comprehension interventions for primary school pupils in disadvantaged schools

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundEffective reading comprehension teaching is an aspiration of education systems across the world. Teaching incorporating reciprocal reading theory and evidence is an internationally popular approach for improving comprehension.AimsThis paper uses two large cluster randomized controlled trials of similar reciprocal reading interventions implemented in different ways to compare their effectiveness.SampleThe two interventions had the same teacher professional development, reciprocal reading activities and dosage/exposure, but varied in their implementation, with one delivered as a whole‐class (‘universal’) version for pupils aged 8–9 years and the other a small group (‘targeted’) version for pupils aged 9–11 years with specific comprehension difficulties.MethodsTwo large‐scale cluster RCTs were conducted in 98 schools with N = 3699 pupils in the universal trial and N = 1523 in the targeted trial.ResultsMulti‐level models showed significant effects for the targeted version of the intervention on pupil reading comprehension (g = .18) and overall reading (g = .14). No significant effects were found for the whole class version. A sub‐group analyses of disadvantaged pupils showed the targeted intervention's effects were even larger on reading comprehension (g = .25).ConclusionsThe evidence suggested that this reciprocal reading intervention worked best when implemented in small groups and targeted for pupils with specific comprehension difficulties and particularly for pupils in disadvantaged circumstances.CommentsThis evaluation shows that even if a reading comprehension intervention is underpinned by strong theory and evidence‐based practice, its effectiveness can still depend on implementation choices.