Effects of computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading on reading comprehension for high-school students with learning disabilities

Access full-text files

Date

2002

Authors

Kim, Ae-hwa

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

Abstract: The effects of Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading (CACSR), in comparison with a comparison sample of a typical language arts resource class, on reading comprehension for high school students with learning disabilities (LD) were examined. CACSR is a researcher-developed computer program that provides systematic instruction in four comprehension strategies of Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), enhanced with researchrecommended technical features of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), for the purpose of enhancing reading comprehension for students with LD. One language arts resource class teacher and 23 students with LD who attended his class sections participated in this study. The four class sections were randomly assigned to either the CACSR group or the comparison group (i.e., a typical language arts resource class). Students participated in 25, 50-minute CACSR sessions for 12 weeks. Before and after the 12-week of the CACSR intervention, all students in both groups were evaluated on comprehension performance as measured by the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised-Passage Comprehension. Additionally, student interviews were conducted with students who received the CACSR intervention after the intervention was completed. A 2 (CACSR vs. comparison) by 2 (pretest vs. posttest) repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that there were no statistically significant intervention or intervention-by-time interaction effects; however, there was a statistically significant time effect on comprehension. Practical significance test using effect sizes revealed that an intervention/comparison group difference effect size at posttest was .24, while it was .13 at pretest. Also, the pretest to posttest mean difference effect size for the CACSR group was .81, while for the comparison group it was .33.

Description

text

Keywords

Citation