Problem    Review of Research    Intervention       Glossary                     

                Conclusions      Reflection    Home

ANALYSIS

Subject A’s areas of strength were identifying details (88%) and identifying vocabulary in context (83%) from the reading selections.  Two areas of relative strength were identifying cause and effect (72%) and identifying main idea (71%).  Two areas of difficulty were sequencing (44%) and making inferences (50%).   During the last session, I asked A if she used these strategies when reading independently.  She answered in the negative.  Please note that there were no sequence questions during the baseline phase for Subject A. Figure 2.1 shows the comparison of baseline and intervention scores on comprehension questions for Subject A.

FIGURE 2.1

Subject B demonstrated significant improvement overall.  Areas of strength were in identification of main idea (88%), identification of supporting details (86%), identification of vocabulary in context (100%), and making inferences (82%). There was one area of relative strength in identification of cause and effect (70.5%).  She exhibited difficulty with sequencing (57%).  When asked if she used these strategies with any of her assigned reading, B responded in the affirmative.  Figure 2.2 shows the comparison of baseline and intervention comprehension scores for Subject B.

FIGURE 2.2

Subject C, after a difficult start, achieved a plateau range during his third session of eight to ten correct responses per reading passage.  His scores remained within that range for the duration of the intervention.  Areas of strength were in identification of main idea (80%), identification of details (81%), vocabulary (86%), and cause and effect (89%).  Areas of difficulty were in sequencing (64%) and making inferences (68.7%).  When asked if he used these strategies with any of his reading assignments, he answered in the affirmative.  Figure 2.3 shows the comparison of baseline and intervention scores  on comprehension questions for Subject C.

FIGURE 2.3

    Prior to the interventions and after the interventions, Subjects A, B, and C completed a Reading Strategy Awareness Inventory.  There were ten multiple-choice questions with four choices per question.  For each question there were two or three correct responses.  

    Of the twenty-six effective strategies, A identified seven effective strategies on the pre-intervention administration.  She identified eighteen effective strategies on the post-intervention administration.   Subject B  identified fifteen of twenty-six effective strategies pre-intervention.  On the post-intervention administration she identified twenty effective strategies.   Subject C  identified twelve effective strategies out of twenty-six pre-intervention.   On the post-intervention administration, he identified nineteen effective strategies.  Figure 2.4 displays the data for the identification of effective comprehension strategies.

FIGURE 2.4

Conclusions     Reflection    Home