The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention

British Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-19

  Pressley, Michael ^a   Graham, Steve ^b   Harris, Karen ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; REVIEW; TEACHING;

EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; REMEDIAL TEACHING;

EID: 33645319009     PISSN: 00070998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000709905X66035     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. 107th Congress (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: United States Congress.
2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Adams, M. J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing, and literacy. In I. Sigel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 275-355). Child psychology in practice, New York: Wiley.
4. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th ed.).Columbus, OH: Merrill.
5. Alexander, P A. (2006). Psychology in learning and instruction. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Almasi, J. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: Guilford.
7. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
8. Beard, R. (Ed.). (1993). Teaching literacy balancing perspectives. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
9. Beard, R. (1999). National literacy strategy: Review of research and other related evidence. Sudbury: DfEE Publications.
10. Beard, R. (2003). Uncovering the key skills of reading. In N. Hall, J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 199-208). London: Sage.
11. Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham, S.(1998). A multiple connections approach to early intervention for spelling problems: Integrating instructional, learner and stimulus variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587-605.
12. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for all: First-year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 1-22.
13. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
14. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(15). Retrieved September 6, 2003, from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v11n 15/.
15. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
16. Chatterji, M. (2004). Evidence on What Works: An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13.
17. Connor, C., Morrison, F., & Petrella, J. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction:Examining child X instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 682-698.
18. Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: Why are they so rare? Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 175-199.
19. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field studies. New York: Rand-McNally.
20. Cooper, H. & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
21. Davenport, M. R. (2002). Miscues not mistakes: Reading assessment in the classroom.Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
22. DfEE. (1998). The national literacy strategy: Framework for teaching. London: HMSO.
23. Gaskins, I. W. (2005). Success with struggling readers: The Benchmark School approach.New York: The Guilford Press.
24. Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25. Glazerman, S., Levy, D. M., & Meyers, D. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earning impacts. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 63-93.
26. Goodman, K. S. (1993). Phonics phacts. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
27. Goswami, U., & East, M. (2000). Rhyme and analogy in beginning reading: Conceptual and methodological issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 63-93.
28. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis.In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 197-207). New York: Guilford.
29. Graham, S. (in press). Writing. In R Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
30. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing:A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 383-402). New York: Guilford.
31. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore MD: Brookes.
32. Graham, S., Harris, K. H., & Zito, J. (2005). In G. D. Phye, D. H. Robinson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 235-265). San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press.
33. HayesJ. R., &Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Henricksson, W. (1994). Meta-analysis as a method for integrating results of studies about effects of practice and coaching on test scores. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 319-329.
35. Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (in press). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction Reading and Writing Quarterly.
36. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse. Urbana, IL.
37. Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-180.
38. Kintsch, W. A. (2003). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. In T. A. Polk (Ed.), Cognitive modeling (pp. 5-47). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
39. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: Real-world lssons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291-302.
40. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3-22.
41. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 449-496.
42. Lakatos, I. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias:An underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289-303.
44. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
47. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., D'Ailly, H., Smith, M., & Cake, H. (1989). A methodological analysis of experimental evaluations of comprehension strategy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 458-470.
48. Manzo, K. K. (2005). States report reading first yielding gains. Education Week, 24(39), 1-17.
49. Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296.
50. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
51. McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brookes.
52. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
54. National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P (2004). Handbook of children's literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
56. Oakhill, J., & Beard, R. (1999). Reading development and the teaching of reading:A psychological perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
57. Phye, G. D., Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (2005). Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press.
58. Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children's learning: Putting the picture in developmental perspective. Review of Educational Research, 47, 586-622.
59. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York:Guilford.
60. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.).New York: Guilford.
62. Pressley, M. (2003). Psychology of literacy and literacy instruction. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 333-355). New York: Wiley.
63. Pressley, M. (2005a). Balanced elementary literacy instruction in the United States: A personal perspective. In N. Bascia, A. Gumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds.),International handbook on educational policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
64. Pressley, M. (2005b). What role should government play in a science of education? In J. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues: Scientifically based education research and federal funding agencies: The case of the No Child Left Behind Legislation. Greenwich CT: Information Age.
65. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
66. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Pressley, M., AlUngton, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. New York: Guilford.
68. Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., & Boling, E. C. (2004). The educational science and scientifically-based instruction we need: Lessons from reading research and policy making. Harvard Educational Review, 74, 30-61.
69. Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension strategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488.
70. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992).Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.
71. Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2005). How a school that effectively remediates serious learning problems works: Benchmark School (Tech. Rep.). East Lansing, MI:Michigan State University, Center for Literacy Achievement Research.
72. Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists!! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 1-32.
73. Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2005). Towards more ambitious comprehension instruction. In E. R. Silliman & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 151-174). New York: Guilford.
74. Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policy makers. New York: HarperCollins.
75. Pressley, M., Raphael, L., Gallagher, J. D., & DiBella, J. (2004). Providence-St. Mel School: How a school that works for African-American students works. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 216-235.
76. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade-4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-191.
77. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
78. Reynolds, D., Creemers, B., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C. & Schaffer, G. (Eds.). (2002). World class schools: International perspectives on school effectiveness. New York: Routledge-Falmer.
79. Robinson, D., You, J., Levin, J., Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W., Hsieh, Y., Kim, H., & Thomas, G. (in press). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology.
80. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2000). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing.Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
81. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2004). Neurobiologic basis for reading and reading disability. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 417-442). Baltimore: Brookes.
83. Slavin, R. E. & Madden, N. A. (Eds.). (2001). Success for all: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
84. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Oxford: Blackwell.
85. Stainthorp, R., &Tomlinson, R (Eds.). (2002). Learning and teaching reading: British Journal of Educational Psychology: Monograph series II: Psychological aspects of education - current trends. Leicester UK: The British Psychological Society.
86. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
87. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165.
88. Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (Eds.), (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Falmer Press.
89. Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
90. Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2003). A consultant's guide to effective writing instruction. Journal of Educational and Pychological Consultation, 14, 75-89.
91. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2004). The use of context in learning to read. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children's literacy (pp. 199-212). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
92. Yatvin, J. (2002). Minority view. In the report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
93. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self-regulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot & C. B. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 509-526). New York: Guilford.