importance of remedial reading essay

• North Tonawanda High School
• North Tonawanda Middle School
• North Tonawanda Intermediate School

Drake Elementary School

• Ohio Elementary School
• Spruce Elementary School

• Newsletters
• One District, One Book
• Strategic Action Plan
• Character Education
• Mission Statement
• NYS School Report Cards
• Principal's Message
• Kindergarten
• Language Arts
• Literacy Collaborative Model
• Physical Education
• Reading Recovery
• Remedial Math
• Remedial Reading
• Social Studies
• Social Work
• Special Education
• Special Friends
• Computer Skills
• School Counselor
• School Social Worker
• Best Practices for Teacher Web Pages
• DePrima, A.
• Dzieranowski, J.
• Jaanimagi, N.
• Mahoney, S.
• Simpson, B.
• Trimboli, L.
• Casillo, N.turned off section nav. 7/5
• DePasquale, A.
• Giannino, M.
• Glogowski, S.
• Keohane, R.
• OLD Library turned off 10/25/12
• Prezioso, R. turned off section nav. 9/11/13
• Schelble, N. -- page turned off 8/5/20
• Training Page
• Wass, M.turned off section nav. 7/5
• Woytila, W.
• Zinni, R. - turned off 8/13/15
• Drake Newsletters
• Shared Decision-Making Team
• Adult Awareness for Child Safety
• Bullying Incident Report
• Computer Lessons
• Emergency Closing
• Family Resource Center
• Friends of Drake
• Internet Safety
• Parent Links
• School of Savers
• School-Age Child Care (SACC)
• Student Links
• Student-Parent Handbook
• Transportation
• Virtual Calming Space
• Strategic Plan

Achieving Excellence

Page navigation.

• The goal of Remedial Reading is to dramatically reduce the number of students who have extreme difficulty learning to read and write.  Remedial Reading is a highly effective short-term intervention of tutoring struggling readers in both an individualized and small group setting.  Remedial Reading teachers are highly trained professionals who work closely with students and design prescriptive and strategic instruction to address individual student needs.   Once students can meet grade-level expectations and demonstrate that they can continue to work independently in the classroom, they are released from Remedial Reading but are still monitored closely to ensure academic success.

CONTACT INFORMATION: 380 Drake Drive North Tonawanda, NY 14120 (PHONE) Phone: 716-807-3725 (FAX) Fax: 716-807-3726 Site Map

• Questions or Feedback? |
• Web Community Manager Privacy Policy (Updated) |

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

A Synthesis of the Sustainability of Remedial Reading Intervention Effects for Struggling Adolescent Readers

Johny daniel.

1 Boston University, MA, USA

Philip Capin

2 The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Paul Steinle

A majority of reading-related intervention studies aiming to remediate struggling readers’ reading outcomes assess student performance immediately following the conclusion of an intervention to determine intervention effects. Few studies collect follow-up data to measure the long-term sustainability of treatment effects. Hence, the aim of the current synthesis was to examine follow-up intervention effects of reading interventions involving adolescent struggling readers in Grades 6 to 12. Our literature search yielded only 10 studies that reported follow-up data for intervention participants, which highlights the dearth of intervention research that examines sustainability of intervention effects. Of the 10 included studies, the weighted mean effect size for all reading outcome measures was g w = 0.78 at immediate posttest and g w = 0.27 at follow-up, in favor of treatment group students. Although the magnitude of difference between treatment and control groups diminished at follow-up time, a comparison of treatment group students’ immediate posttest and follow-up scores showed that students mostly maintained gains made during intervention at follow-up time points.

Socially significant behavior changes are those that last over time, are used by the learner in all relevant settings and situations, and are accompanied by changes in other relevant responses … to perform below this standard is more than just regrettable; it is a clear indication that the initial instruction was not entirely successful. — J. O. Cooper et al. (2008 , p. 623).

Reading intervention studies that aim to improve adolescent struggling readers’ reading outcomes generally measure and report the efficacy of an intervention based on students’ immediate posttest reading performance. However, there is inadequate research addressing the sustainability of intervention effects as a measure of intervention effectiveness ( Suggate, 2016 ). In other words, little is known about adolescent struggling readers’ ability to maintain gains made due to interventions. Evaluating student performance at follow-up time points can further demonstrate a program’s effectiveness or, alternatively, detect programs that lead to only short-term gains ( Keogh, 2004 ; Suggate, 2016 ). More importantly, performance on follow-up tests can add substantial scientific value to the evaluation of reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers.

Effectiveness of Reading Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers

A substantial body of research exists on examining the effects of instructional methods for students who struggle to read and comprehend grade-level text in middle and high school (e.g., Boardman et al., 2008 ; Roberts et al., 2008 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ; Vaughn, Roberts, Wexler, et al., 2015 ; Vaughn et al., 2019 ). However, these studies have generally yielded mixed findings. For instance, the Striving Readers Project ( Boulay et al., 2015 ), funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), summarized findings from 17 randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of 10 different reading interventions for struggling adolescent readers in Grades 6 through 10 ( Cantrell et al., 2010 , 2011 , 2012 ; Deussen et al., 2012 ; Dimitrov et al., 2012 ; Faddis et al., 2011 ; Feldman et al., 2011 ; Hofstetter et al., 2011 ; Loadman et al., 2011 ; Meisch et al., 2011 ; Newman et al., 2012 ; Schenck et al., 2012 ; Schiller et al., 2012 ; Swanlund et al., 2012 ; The Education Alliance at Brown University, 2012 ; Tunik et al., 2011 ; Vaden-Kiernan et al., 2012 ). The IES report summarizing the findings rated each intervention’s effect on student reading outcomes. Of the 10 intervention studies, IES summarized that six reported no discernable effects, three reported positive or potentially positive effects, and one study reported mixed effects of intervention on students’ reading outcomes.

Similarly, meta-analyses and syntheses that aggregate the results of multiple studies also provide a mixed picture of the effects of secondary reading interventions. Some past meta-analyses have reported moderate effects of reading interventions for struggling readers in upper elementary and later grades: g = 0.41 ( Flynn et al., 2012 ), g = 0.47 ( Edmonds et al., 2009 ), g = 0.49 ( Scammacca et al., 2015 ). In contrast, Wanzek et al. (2013) , measuring the effects of extensive (i.e., comprising of 100 or more sessions) reading interventions, reported small effects of interventions on various reading outcomes ( g = 0.10–0.16). In addition, Scammacca et al. (2015) disaggregated results of interventions and reported much smaller effects for standardized reading outcome measures ( g = 0.21), with multicomponent reading interventions demonstrating the largest positive effect on standardized reading comprehension measures ( g = 0.46).

Past systematic reviews and meta-analyses also report on the type of interventions that are most effective in improving students’ reading outcomes for struggling adolescent readers. For instance, Scammacca et al. (2007) reported large effects of comprehension strategy instruction ( d = 1.23), vocabulary instruction ( d = 1.62), and word study instruction ( d = 1.60) on various researcher-developed and standardized reading measures. In a subsequent meta-analysis, Scammacca et al. (2015) reported large effects of vocabulary interventions ( d = 1.58) and reading comprehension interventions ( d = 0.74) on adolescent struggling readers’ reading outcomes. However, it is important to note that, across these meta-analyses, researchers have generally reported substantial differences in effects between researcher-developed and standardized measures, with greater effects observed on researcher-developed measures (e.g., Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2015 ). For instance, Scammacca et al. (2015) reported that, whereas the overall effect size (ES) across all included studies and measures was 0.49, the average reported ES was 0.21 on standardized measures.

In a more recent systematic review, Berkeley and Larsen (2018) reviewed the extent to which self-regulation of reading strategies benefited adolescent students with learning disabilities (LD). The researchers ( Berkeley & Larsen, 2018 ) reported that the average effect across 18 studies, on predominantly researcher-developed reading measures, was large at posttest (ES = 1.35). In addition, eight of the 18 included studies reported follow-up data that showed treatment group students continued to exhibit improved performance on reading measures compared with their control group peers. The average follow-up effect was also large (ES = 0.95); however, most studies assessed maintenance effects using researcher-developed measures. This finding is vital in evaluating the benefits of embedding self-regulation elements to make a long-lasting impact on students’ reading performance.

In summary, several past studies have implemented a variety of reading interventions to improve reading outcomes for adolescent struggling readers. One challenge with interpreting the effects of past reading intervention studies is that a majority of interventions, and almost all past systematic reviews of these studies, focus on student performance at the end of the intervention period. Rarely do researchers follow study participants to analyze the long-term effects of interventions. Thus, the goal of this review is to examine the sustainability of reading intervention effects observed at immediate posttest compared with follow-up time points. The current review is also not limited to any one type of reading intervention (e.g., self-regulation strategy; see Berkeley & Larsen, 2018 ) but aims to evaluate the sustainable effects of a variety of reading interventions that target different components of reading (i.e., comprehension, vocabulary, word reading, and fluency). Follow-up is defined in this review as any data point collected two or more weeks after the end of the original intervention.

Importance of Follow-Up Data

Researchers have advocated for the collection of follow-up data to better assess the effectiveness of educational interventions ( Keogh, 2004 ; Suggate, 2016 ). Those who collected follow-up data for early elementary reading intervention studies generally reported positive maintenance effects of phonological awareness and phonics instruction on reading outcomes for low performing students in Grades K–3 (e.g., Blachman et al., 2004 , 2014 ; Ryder et al., 2008 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ). These studies have contributed to the growing body of evidence emphasizing the importance of code-oriented instruction in early elementary education, especially for low performing students. Results indicate that benefits of instruction extended from 1 to 10 years after the intervention concluded (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993 , 1995 ; Ryder et al., 2008 ; Vadasy et al., 2006 ).

Indeed, a recent meta-analysis ( Suggate, 2016 ) of the follow-up effects of reading interventions targeting students in Grades pre-K–6 corroborates the effectiveness of phonological awareness instruction for typical and low performing students. Suggate (2016) identified 71 reading intervention studies, with an average follow-up time of approximately 11 months. Among the 17 phonemic awareness intervention studies identified, the average effect across all reading measures at immediate posttest ( d w = 0.43) was mostly sustained at follow-up time points ( d w = 0.36). Similarly, averaging across all reading measures, positive effects of comprehension interventions were also sustained from immediate posttest ( d w = 0.38) to follow-up ( d w = 0.46) for treatment group students. In contrast, the effects of fluency interventions on students’ overall reading outcomes diminished from posttest ( d w = 0.47) to follow-up ( d w = 0.28). More surprisingly, effects of phonics interventions on reading outcomes were significant at immediate posttest ( d w = 0.29) but were trivial at the follow-up time point ( d w = 0.07); Suggate (2016) hypothesized that the diminished performance at follow-up may be due to a stronger counterfactual rather than loss of learning for the treatment group students.

Whereas the primary focus of early elementary reading instruction is to develop students’ word reading skills, in the upper elementary and later grades the focus of instruction shifts to extracting and constructing meaning from text ( Chall & Jacobs, 2003 ). Results from previous early elementary intervention studies and Suggate’s (2016) meta-analysis establish the long-term benefits of implementing early reading interventions, especially for at-risk student populations. However, whereas considerable evidence supports the effectiveness and extended benefits of reading interventions in early elementary grades, there is much less evidence confirming the long-term benefits of effective middle and high school reading instructional practices for struggling adolescent readers.

Current Study

Although our understanding of the effects of reading interventions for adolescents is growing, no previous synthesis has examined the long-term effects of these interventions. This article will serve as an upward extension of the Suggate (2016) meta-analysis, which examined the long-term effects of elementary reading interventions. However, unlike Suggate’s (2016) meta-analysis, which focused on the ways struggling readers’ response to interventions varied from typical peers, this synthesis focuses solely on the reading outcomes of struggling readers. Thus, the aim of this synthesis is to address the following research question:

Research Question 1 (RQ1):

What are the effects of reading interventions provided in small-group settings on reading outcomes for struggling readers in Grades 6 to 12 at immediate posttest and follow-up time points?

Data Collection

A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted. First, an online search of four educational literature databases was conducted on Education source, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global to locate unpublished and published studies between 1996 and August 2019. We searched abstracts using search terms for reading (reading OR vocabulary OR phon* OR fluency OR decod* OR comprehen*), study type (intervention OR strateg* OR curricul* OR approach* OR treatment OR teaching method* OR instruction* OR teaching aids OR program), sample (disabilit* OR disorder OR delay* OR struggling OR “reading problem*” OR dyslexi* OR “learning problem*” OR “special education” OR “special need*” OR “at risk” OR “high risk” OR “mild handicap*” OR reading difficult*), and follow-up data (“long-term” OR “medium-term” OR “follow-up” OR posttest OR “posttest” OR longitudinal OR period OR maint*). Compared with this study’s screening process, Suggate’s (2016) literature search was limited to two databases (i.e., ERIC and PsycINFO). Our search terms for the follow-up data were the same, and we added “vocabulary” to the reading search terms. There was no overlap for the study type and sample search terms.

The second step in identifying articles relevant to the research question involved a hand search of 14 prominent educational journals spanning from January 2017 through August 2019. This 2-year window ensured that the electronic search captured all relevant articles. The hand-searched journals included Annals of Dyslexia, Cognition and Instruction, Exceptional Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Journal of Research in Reading, Journal of Special Education, Learning Disability Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Reading and Writing Quarterly, Reading Psychology, Reading Research Quarterly, Remedial and Special Education, and Scientific Studies of Reading . In addition, relevant articles were sourced through an ancestry search of articles that fit the inclusion criteria. Finally, we did an ancestry search of existing reviews that synthesized the effects of reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers ( Berkeley & Larsen, 2018 ; Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2007 ; Scammacca et al., 2015 , 2016 ).

Figure 1 shows the process for including studies for this systematic review. The online database search revealed 22,770 potential articles. The first author screened abstracts and included any abstract related to reading interventions for full-text screening ( n = 904). Table 1 provides examples of studies that were not included in this synthesis. A total of 10 studies (six peer-reviewed articles and four dissertations) met all inclusion criteria:

• Interventions involving participants identified with LD, dyslexia, or struggling readers in Grades 6 to 12;
• Studies that were randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs;
• Intervention studies targeting English language reading-related skills, such as decoding, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, or multicomponent reading interventions;
• Studies that reported immediate posttest and maintenance data for at least one dependent measure that assessed reading-related outcomes;
• Reading-related interventions conducted in school settings (i.e., no summer school or home-based literacy program);
• Reading-related interventions conducted in school settings outside the general education classroom;
• Studies published between January 1996 and August 2019;
• Studies published in a peer-reviewed journal or unpublished dissertations;
• Studies available in English.

The target sample of studies were experimental or quasi-experimental reading interventions that reported reading-related outcome data for immediate posttest and for at least one reading measure at a follow-up time point. The authors made an a priori decision to exclude single-case design studies due to inconsistencies in the number of data points reported in the intervention and maintenance (i.e., follow-up) phases; typically, several data points are reported in the intervention phase, whereas one/two data points are reported for the maintenance/follow-up phase. This imbalance would lead to skewed Tau- U ESs as the magnitude of difference is dependent on the length of the phases for ES calculation (J. E. Pustejovsky, personal communication, July 08, 2018). Thus, following Suggate’s (2016) lead, only group design studies were considered for this review.

Flowchart for inclusion of studies.

Note . PI = primary investigator.

Examples of Studies Not Included in This Synthesis.

Study Coding

All included studies were coded using the Guide for Education-Related Intervention Study Syntheses ( Vaughn et al., 2014 ). This codesheet has been used in numerous previous syntheses (e.g., Daniel & Williams, 2019 ; Hall et al., 2017 ; Scammacca et al., 2016 ) and includes all critical components identified in the systematic review process of the What Works Clearinghouse ( WWC, 2017 ) Study Review Guide. Critical components included in the codesheet include design information, sample description; sample sizes; baseline measures; measures’ description including validity, reliability, and internal consistency information of each measure; data used for analysis; attrition information; description of treatment and control groups; and description of treatment and control group procedures. Furthermore, the codesheet was updated to include follow-up data outcome measures and scores, and times when follow-up data were collected.

Data Analysis

Standardized mean difference ESs were calculated using Hedges’s g to adjust for the possibility of small sample bias. Treatment and comparison groups’ immediate posttest and follow-up means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were used to calculate Hedges’s g . In addition, we sought to examine the sustainability of effects for treatment group students by calculating an ES comparing treatment group students’ immediate posttest and follow-up mean outcome scores.

All eligible ESs in each study that provided mean and standard deviation or other relevant statistics, such as F test scores, were considered in calculating the weighted mean ES. Group design studies contributed multiple ESs when the sample for each ES was independent. For studies that reported multiple ESs from the same sample (e.g., two ESs based on two reading comprehension measures were calculated for treatment vs. control in one study), analysis also accounted for the statistical dependencies using the random effects robust standard error estimation technique developed by Hedges et al. (2010) . This analysis allows for clustered data (i.e., ESs nested within samples) by correcting the study standard errors to take into account the correlations between ESs from the same sample. The robust standard error technique requires that an estimate of the mean correlation (ρ) between all the pairs of ESs within a cluster be estimated for calculating the between-study sampling variance estimate, τ 2 . In all analyses, we estimated τ 2 with ρ = .80. Because this review included studies conducted in Grades 6 to 12, it was hypothesized that the research body was reporting a distribution of ESs with significant between-studies variance, as opposed to a group of studies attempting to estimate one true ES ( Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). Thus, a random-effect model was used for the current study. Robust variance estimation analysis was conducted in R, using the robumeta package ( Fisher & Tipton, 2015 ).

The WWC recommends interpreting ESs of 0.25 and larger as “substantially important” in educational research settings ( WWC, 2017 ). This recommendation was considered when interpreting the magnitude and importance of the effects. Finally, descriptive statistical data were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine whether each individual ES was significant, that is, if a statistic is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level, then the 95% CI will not contain zero.

Table 2 provides a description of the 10 studies that met all inclusion criteria and were included in this synthesis. Of the 10 studies, six were peer-reviewed journal articles and four were unpublished doctoral dissertations. Across the studies, immediate posttest and follow-up data were collected on 856 and 693 adolescent struggling readers, respectively. Of these, at posttest, 263 students were identified as having an LD while 593 were identified as struggling readers.

Study Information.

Note . LD = learning disabilities; NR = not reported; T = treatment; CO = control; AIMS = Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards test; RAP = read–ask–paraphrase.

On average, follow-up data collection took place 21.2 weeks after posttesting (range = 2 weeks–2 years). The analysis showed that the estimated average weighted ES on all reading outcome measures between treatment and control groups at immediate posttest was g w = 0.78, 95% CI = [0.25, 1.31], (τ 2 = .55), and at follow-up was g w = 0.27, 95% CI = [−0.23, 0.77], (τ 2 = .20). For researcher-developed reading measures, weighted ES between the treatment and control groups at immediate posttest was g w = 0.86, 95% CI = [0.30, 1.42], (τ 2 = .59), and at the follow-up time point, it was g w = 0.35, 95% CI = [−0.20, 0.91], (τ 2 = .20). For standardized measures, weighted ES at immediate posttest was g w = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.15, 0.25], (τ 2 = .00). No mean effect on standardized measures at follow-up was calculated because only two of the four studies that administered standardized measures collected follow-up data on control group students. In addition, we conducted statistical significance tests for each treatment and control group comparison. Of the 44 immediate posttest ESs measured across 10 studies, 17 were significant and positive in favor of the treatment group; 27 ESs were not significant. Similarly, of the 26 follow-up ESs measured, 13 were positive and significant; 13 ESs were not significant.

An ES was also calculated to measure the magnitude of difference between each treatment group’s immediate posttest and follow-up reading scores. Of the 35 immediate posttest and follow-up reading outcome comparisons, the difference in scores between treatment groups’ immediate posttest and follow-up were no different from zero for 31 ESs as shown in Figure 2 for the studies in which the CI contains zero. In one study ( Haines et al., 2018 ), treatment group students performed significantly higher on a standardized reading measure at the 2-year follow-up compared with posttest. In contrast, the data from three studies showed that treatment group students performed significantly lower on certain reading measures at follow-up than at the immediate posttest ( Clarke et al., 2017 ; Esser, 2001 ; Jitendra et al., 2000 ).

Reading outcome comparison for treatment groups at follow-up and immediate posttest time points.

Note . (a) Effect size is significant when 95% confidence interval does not contain zero. (b) Positive effects (where the CI does not contain zero) indicate significantly greater performance at follow-up compared with immediate posttest. (c) Negative effects (where the CI does not contain zero) indicate significantly lower performance at follow-up compared with immediate posttest. (d) Kennedy et al. (2015) was not included because at follow-up researchers administered a truncated version of the posttest measure. (e) Lane (1997) and Newbern (1998) were not included because raw data or summary statistics for follow-up time point are not reported; the authors only report F -statistic for difference between treatment and control groups.

Study Participants

Participants in nine studies included in this synthesis were sixth, seventh, eighth, and/or ninth graders ( Berkeley et al., 2011 ; Clarke et al., 2017 ; Esser, 2001 ; Haines et al., 2018 ; Jitendra et al., 2000 ; Lane, 1997 ; Newbern, 1998 ; O’Connor et al., 2019 ; Vachon, 1999 ). Participants in one study ( Kennedy et al., 2015 ) were 10th graders. Participants in six studies were selected due to their school/district identification of LD ( Berkeley et al., 2011 ; Esser, 2001 ; Jitendra et al., 2000 ; Kennedy et al., 2015 ; Newbern, 1998 ; O’Connor et al., 2019 ). Four studies included students who did not have an LD identification but were below grade level on a standardized reading measure ( Clarke et al., 2017 ; Haines et al., 2018 ; Lane, 1997 ; Vachon, 1999 ). Clarke and colleagues (2017) included students from Grades 7 and 8 who scored below 90 on the Single Word Reading Test (SWRT; Foster & The National Foundation for Educational Research, 2008 ). Haines et al. (2018) selected participants in high poverty schools who failed to pass the state test. Lane (1997) included sixth-grade students who scored between the 9th and 39th percentile on a standardized reading measure (the authors did not report which standardized measure was used). Similarly, Vachon (1999) included students from Grades 6 to 8 who scored between third- and fifth-grade equivalencies on the Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test–Word Identification subtest ( Woodcock, 1987 ), read 60 to 90 words correct per minute on a grade-level text, and scored at or below Grade 3–level equivalency on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test ( Dunn et al., 1965 ).

Intervention Type

As shown in Table 2 , five of the 10 studies made use of metacognitive strategy instruction to improve reading outcomes for struggling readers. However, results of the intervention at posttest and follow-up time points varied across several factors, such as type of strategy, measurement instrument, and duration of the intervention. Two studies used a multicomponent framework to provide instruction in multiple areas of reading ( Clarke et al., 2017 ; Haines et al., 2018 ). Across both studies, there was no clear trend on the benefits of intervention for treatment group students. Similarly, the effects of vocabulary and word reading instruction for adolescent struggling readers also did not depict a clear trend of benefits for treatment group students at follow-up time points ( Kennedy et al., 2015 ; O’Connor et al., 2019 ; Vachon, 1999 ).

Comprehension.

The estimated average weighted ES between treatment and control groups on all reading comprehension measures at immediate posttest was g w = 0.67, 95% CI = [0.10, 1.25], (τ 2 = .43), and at follow-up was g w = 0.33, 95% CI = [−0.19, 0.85], (τ 2 = .10). A majority of studies ( n = 5) included in this synthesis focused on improving students’ comprehension of expository ( Berkeley et al., 2011 ; Esser, 2001 ; Lane, 1997 ) or narrative texts ( Jitendra et al., 2000 ; Newbern, 1998 ). All five studies taught students to use various comprehension strategies, however, only three studies ( Berkeley et al., 2011 ; Esser, 2001 ; Jitendra et al., 2000 ) reported employing a combination of direct (i.e., modeling, guided, and independent practice) and strategy instruction.

As shown in Table 2 , Esser (2001) and Berkeley et al. (2011) provided very similar reading interventions to adolescent struggling readers. These researchers provided a combination of direct instruction and reading comprehension strategy instruction (i.e., activating background knowledge, setting a purpose for reading, previewing text, generating questions, and summarization) to two treatment groups. In both studies, Treatment Group 2 received additional instruction after each session in attribution retraining to improve their self-belief. Berkeley et al. (2011) found positive effects of intervention on a researcher-developed summarization outcome measure for both treatment groups at immediate posttest ( g = 1.39 and 0.92) and 6-week follow-up ( g = 1.12 and 0.67). However, both treatment and control groups did not differ significantly at immediate posttest and follow-up time points on another researcher-developed measure—the passage test measure comprising multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Conversely, Esser (2001) administered only one researcher-developed reading measure and found positive effects of intervention at immediate posttest for both treatment groups ( g = 0.58 and 1.23). Nonetheless, treatment and control groups did not differ significantly on the same test at the 6-week follow-up.

In Jitendra et al. (2000) , tutors provided a combination of direct instruction and main idea generation instruction to treatment group students. Of the six researcher-developed measures administered at immediate posttest and follow-up time points, treatment group students outperformed control group participants on five of six measures at immediate posttest with significant ESs ranging from g = 0.93 to 2.65. However, on the 6-week follow-up test, the treatment group outperformed control group participants on only three of the six measures, with significant ESs ranging from g = 0.75 to 1.26.

Studies that did not provide direct instruction also reported mixed maintenance effects. Newbern (1998) taught students the mnemonic Read–Ask–Paraphrase (RAP) to generate the main idea of the passage. On a researcher-developed measure of reading comprehension, large positive effects of intervention in favor of the treatment group were reported at immediate posttest ( g = 1.45). However, this positive intervention effect was not maintained at the 2-week follow-up time point and the F test score was not significant.

Lane (1997) taught students to activate background knowledge, think about the most important who/what, and write a sentence describing the main idea after reading. A greater magnitude of difference at follow-up was reported compared with the immediate posttest. At posttest, the treatment group outperformed control group students on a researcher-developed main idea generation measure ( g = 0.55). However, treatment and control groups were not significantly different on another researcher-developed multiple-choice comprehension measure and the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT; Gates & MacGinitie, 1964 ). At the 2-week follow-up, the treatment group outperformed the control group participants on all three measures: multiple choice ( g = 0.34), main idea generation ( g = 0.49), and GMRT ( g = 0.33).

The type of instruction that control group students received in all five studies varied slightly. In three studies ( Esser, 2001 ; Lane, 1997 ; Newbern, 1998 ), control group students received no comprehension strategy instruction; students were required to read text and answer comprehension questions. In one study ( Jitendra et al., 2000 ), control group students continued their business-as-usual activities that included decoding and comprehension activities. Finally, the control group students in Berkeley et al. (2011) practiced repeated reading, graphed their fluency scores, and made predictions before reading the text.

Vocabulary.

Our search located two vocabulary-related interventions that involved struggling readers and collected follow-up data. Kennedy et al. (2015) taught 10th-grade students vocabulary words from a grade-level history lesson on World War I using multimedia-based instructional videos. Of the three different treatment groups, Treatment Group 1 watched videos containing explicit instruction incorporating text and images, Treatment Group 2 watched videos on the usage of a mnemonic strategy, and Treatment Group 3 watched videos that combined explicit instruction with the mnemonic strategy. Control group participants were also taught the same set of vocabulary words through vocabulary videos that contained only text (in the absence of images, keyword mnemonic strategy, and direct instruction).

All three treatment groups outperformed control group students at immediate posttest (range g = 1.57–2.81) and at the 3-week follow-up (range g = 1.67–2.88) on a researcher-developed, open-ended vocabulary measure that asked students to write student-friendly definitions. However, on another researcher-developed multiple-choice vocabulary measure, only the participants in Treatment Group 3 (explicit instruction + mnemonic strategy) outperformed control group students at immediate posttest ( g = 1.57). At the follow-up time point, both Treatment Groups 2 (mnemonic strategy only) and 3 outperformed control group students (T2 = 1.41, T3 = 1.33).

In the O’Connor et al. (2019) study, researchers provided daily supplemental vocabulary lessons spanning 15 min. These sessions were in addition to the school-provided instruction students were receiving in special education classrooms. In each session, students were taught four new vocabulary words. Lessons included word synonyms, student-friendly definitions, discussions about the words, and writing sentences with learned words. Treatment group students significantly outperformed control group students at immediate posttest on both researcher-developed measures ( g = 1.88 and g = 2.31). Only treatment group students were administered the follow-up vocabulary measure. A comparison between the treatment group’s immediate posttest and follow-up scores showed that participants maintained gains made during the intervention and performed similarly on the researcher-developed measure at the 4-week follow-up test ( g = 0.06).

Word reading.

The authors were unable to locate any studies, for this student population, which provided a reading fluency intervention and collected follow-up data. One study ( Vachon, 1999 ) taught students to read multisyllabic words and collected follow-up data on their decoding and fluency outcomes. Although the study was a randomized controlled trial, it is important to note that the control group in this study did receive very similar word reading instruction. The difference between the treatment and control conditions was related to the criteria that students had to meet during instruction to receive the next set of words. The researcher compared groups of students who had to achieve 90% mastery in word reading with students who did not have to achieve mastery before new sets of words were introduced. No differences were found at immediate posttest or follow-up between the mastery and non-mastery groups on standardized measures of decoding and a researcher-developed fluency measure.

Multicomponent reading interventions.

Two studies implemented multicomponent reading interventions and collected follow-up data for treatment group students. Clarke et al. (2017) randomized study participants to three groups. In Treatment Group 1, students read on- and below-grade-level passages to improve reading fluency, worked on improving their decoding skills through phonics instruction, and wrote sentences. In addition to receiving instruction in reading fluency, phonics, and writing, Treatment Group 2 also received instruction in new vocabulary, listening comprehension, and strategy use. The control group received business-as-usual instruction and was wait-listed to receive treatment. At posttest, on almost all reading measures, there was no significant difference between treatment and control group participants. Due to the study design, control group students received the 20-week treatment after posttesting. Follow-up data were only available for treatment group students. Treatment participants in both groups maintained their immediate posttest performance on all reading measures at the 20-week follow-up.

Haines et al. (2018) collected data on students who participated in the Read 180 program ( Scholastic, 2015 ). Study participants attended daily 90-min sessions for one academic year. The program included instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, and writing. At the end of the intervention, treatment group students were matched to students who did not receive the Read 180 program instruction. Students were matched on their baseline Scholastic Reading Inventory scores (SRI; Scholastic, 2014 ). Treatment and control group students did not differ significantly on the SRI measure at immediate posttest, 1- and 2-year follow-up tests.

Treatment Dosage

On average, researchers provided 15.6 hr (range = 1–55 hr) of reading-related interventions across the nine studies; it was not possible to estimate the total hours of instruction for one study ( Haines et al., 2018 ). Two studies collected data on both treatment and control group students at immediate posttest and follow-up time points; Newbern (1998) provided 3 hr and Esser (2001) provided 5 hr of comprehension instruction. Both studies reported no significant difference between treatment and control groups at a follow-up testing time point. On the contrary, Berkeley et al. (2011) , Lane (1997) , and Jitendra et al. (2000) provided 6 to 10 hr of comprehension-related interventions, and follow-up results varied for different measures. Berkeley et al. (2011) reported stable maintenance effects at the follow-up time point on a non-standardized measure of main idea summarization. No significant differences were observed for students in treatment and control groups at immediate posttest and follow-up time points on another non-standardized measure of explicit and implicit questions related to the test passage. Jitendra et al. (2000) reported stable positive maintenance effects at follow-up on a researcher-developed near transfer measure of comprehension, but the magnitude of difference on a researcher-developed far transfer measure was only significant at immediate posttest and not at the follow-up time point. Conversely, Lane (1997) reported moderate positive effects of intervention on researcher-developed and standardized measures at the follow-up time point.

Outcome Measures

Of the 25 different reading measures students were assessed on, across the 10 included studies, 10 were standardized norm-referenced reading measures (see Table 3 ). These included standardized measures of reading comprehension, reading fluency, word reading, and vocabulary. The 15 researcher-developed reading comprehension measures required students to read text and either generate a main idea statement or answer open-ended or multiple-choice questions.

Study Measures and Outcomes.

Note . Std = standardized measure; T = treatment; CO = control; PT = posttest; FU = follow-up; NR = not reported; SWRT = Single Word Reading Test; NGRT = New Group Reading Test Digital; TOWRE II = Test of Word Reading Efficiency–2; WIAT II = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition; WASI II = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–Second Edition; WRMT = Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test.

Clarity of Causal Inference and Study Quality

In all studies except two ( Haines et al., 2018 ; Newbern, 1998 ), participants were randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions. Haines et al. (2018) matched treatment group students to control group students who had similar pretest scores on the SRI. The matching was done after treatment group students had completed the intervention. Pretest data were not available to establish baseline equivalency between the two groups. Newbern (1998) selected participants based on students’ LD identification at their school/district and a reading score, on a standardized reading measure, indicating that the participant’s reading ability was one or more years below grade level. Due to scheduling issues, 13 students were assigned to the control group. The remaining 36 students were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. It is equally important to note that on the pretest measure, the treatment and control groups were not comparable. According to WWC (2017) , the absolute ES between the treatment and control groups should be ≤0.05, or between 0.05 and 0.25, with statistical adjustments required to satisfy baseline equivalence. In Newbern’s (1998) study, the absolute ES on the pretest measure between treatment and control groups was d = 0.65. Hence, both studies do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

For all 10 studies included in this synthesis, no differential attrition was reported that exceeded the acceptable level ( WWC, 2017 ). Group sizes remained similar at the start of the study, during posttest, and at follow-up testing time points. Based on the WWC study ratings, eight of the 10 studies met WWC standards for group design studies without reservations and were rated high. Two studies ( Haines et al., 2018 ; Newbern, 1998 ) did not meet the WWC group design standards and were rated low.

The objective of this synthesis was to understand how well effects of reading interventions were sustained at follow-up time points for struggling adolescent readers in Grades 6 to 12. Ten studies met inclusion criteria, and analyses of data showed a large significant intervention effect of reading interventions at posttest, which, on average, reduced to a moderate effect at follow-up. Of the 25 reading measures students were assessed on, 15 were researcher-developed reading measures.

Across all studies, the effect of treatment was g w = 0.78 at posttest and g w = 0.27 at follow-up. The estimated posttest ES in this study ( g w = 0.78) was high, relative to past reviews of reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers, which yielded ESs ranging from g = 0.41 to 0.47 ( Flynn et al., 2012 ; Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2015 ). One explanation for the heightened posttest ES in this study may be the high number of researcher-developed measures in the included studies. Past studies have consistently reported that researcher-developed measures yield greater ESs compared with standardized reading measures ( Cheung & Slavin, 2016 ; Slavin & Madden, 2011 ).

Of the 26 ESs measured to compare treatment and control groups’ performance at immediate posttest and follow-up, 14 were positive and significant in favor of the treatment group. It was observed that the CIs of these 14 ESs overlapped with 12 follow-up ES CIs, denoting sustainability and stability of intervention effects. Although there is no general consensus on the appropriate time to collect follow-up data, it is relevant to note that the average follow-up time frame was approximately 21 weeks. It is also important to note that the average follow-up time was skewed due to one study collecting follow-up data 1 and 2 years after posttest. In contrast to the mean follow-up time, the median follow-up time was 6 weeks. Hence, it could be argued that additional research with greater time between immediate posttest and follow-up data collection is needed to build on the current review’s findings, which indicate that adolescent struggling readers generally maintain their reading-related gains over time.

Follow-Up Effects of Reading Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers

Interventions targeted at improving students’ reading comprehension reported that middle and high school struggling readers, in general, performed better at immediate posttest and follow-up on measures of summarizing text and identifying the main idea compared with answering multiple-choice questions. However, it should be noted that almost all of these were researcher-developed measures, and it is difficult to estimate whether these tests were overaligned with learning acquisitions that favored treatment group students unfairly. Only two comprehension-related intervention studies ( Haines et al., 2018 ; Lane, 1997 ) administered a standardized measure of reading comprehension to both treatment and control groups at immediate posttest and follow-up time points.

Lane (1997) reported that, whereas treatment and control group students did not differ significantly at immediate posttest on the GMRT ( Gates & MacGinitie, 1964 ), treatment group students outperformed controls at the 2-week follow-up test. This finding could imply sleeper effects of intervention, indicating that students may take time to adopt strategies learned during the intervention, and positive effects may be documented if follow-up data are collected and analyzed. Haines et al. (2018) observed that treatment and control group students did not differ significantly at posttest, 1- and 2-year follow-ups but that both groups’ reading performance continued to improve over time. On the contrary, two studies ( Esser, 2001 ; Newbern, 1998 ) reported moderate to large positive effects of intervention on treatment group students’ reading outcomes compared with control group participants at posttest. However, treatment group students in both studies were not significantly different from control group students on reading measures at follow-up time points. In contrast to Lane’s (1997) findings, results from these two studies suggest fading effects once treatment is over. These examples provide preliminary evidence of the importance of collecting follow-up data to assess students’ response to intervention in a more nuanced manner.

Comprehension-related intervention studies that delivered instruction for a total of <6 hr ( Esser, 2001 ; Newbern, 1998 ) reported no significant differences between treatment and control groups at follow-up time points. In contrast, studies that delivered reading comprehension–related interventions for six or more hours generally reported positive effects of intervention on reading comprehension measures at immediate posttest and follow-up time points. These findings align with current recommendations in the field that advocate for interventions spanning longer durations to allow students who struggle with reading to make substantial gains in their targeted area of reading difficulty ( Vaughn et al., 2012 ).

Finally, Suggate’s (2016) analysis of the follow-up effects of early elementary reading intervention studies showed that providing reading interventions for at-risk student populations was beneficial in the long-term. Treatment group students not only outperformed their peers at the end of treatment but also continued to show sustainable positive effects of phonological awareness and comprehension-related interventions months, and sometimes years, after the intervention. In an attempt to understand the long-term effects of reading interventions for middle and high school students at risk of reading failure, we found that not many studies follow adolescent struggling readers post-intervention. Over the past two decades, a handful of studies collected follow-up data for this student population. Our analyses showed that, in general, providing intensive reading comprehension strategy instruction, either with or without direct instruction, was beneficial to students’ progress in reading. This finding indicates that when provided with targeted reading instruction in small-group settings, middle and high school students who struggle to read can still make gains and improve their reading outcomes. While a majority of the studies included in this synthesis aimed to improve comprehension outcomes for struggling adolescent readers, a few studies focused on improving students’ vocabulary and word reading skills. Considering the paucity of such intervention studies reporting follow-up data, it is unclear how effective word reading and vocabulary interventions are in sustainably improving students’ word reading ability and lexicon post-intervention.

Study Limitations

A key constraint of this synthesis is the limited number of studies included in this review. Although an exhaustive search process was utilized to access studies with follow-up data, only 10 studies were located that provided the data needed to measure effects. Although a previous synthesis ( Berkeley & Larsen, 2018 ) found other reading intervention studies with follow-up data, some of these studies did not meet our inclusion criteria due to the publication date, language of instruction, and/or lack of access to disaggregated data (see Table 1 ). In addition, hand search of relevant journals, to locate studies that fit the inclusion criteria, was limited to 2017–2019, and it is possible that additional articles may have been missed. It is also likely that we missed out on potential studies due to indexing issues, highlighted in previous reviews (e.g., Lemons et al., 2016 ), which could lead to different search results, depending on the search interface, vendor retrieval algorithms, and article indexing ( C. S. Burns et al., 2019 ). However, it is worth noting that we followed H. M. Cooper’s (2017) recommendations—an online database search, ancestry, and hand searches, in addition to contacting primary investigators for disaggregated data—to locate relevant articles.

Furthermore, due to the small number of studies included in this synthesis, it was not possible to conduct moderator analyses to analyze intervention elements that influenced the strength of association between treatment and follow-up effects. In addition, although this study reports findings for middle and high school students’ reading outcomes, the study’s findings are limited to struggling readers in Grades 6 to 10 because no studies were found that involved Grades 11 and 12 participants.

Another important limitation of this synthesis is that a majority of measures administered in the included studies were researcher-developed measures. Past reviews of literature have generally reported great effects of treatment when measured on researcher-developed measures compared with distal or standardized reading measures ( Cheung & Slavin, 2016 ; Edmonds et al., 2009 ; Scammacca et al., 2015 ). One potential implication of overreliance on making inferences related to study effectiveness based on researcher-developed measures is the potential of inflating program effectiveness. In addition, multiple exposures to the same researcher-developed reading measure could lead to testing effects and fatigue.

Implications

Findings from the current synthesis on measuring student data at follow-up time points suggests that reading interventions can still be effective methods to improve reading outcomes for struggling readers in middle and high school. For instance, two studies included in this synthesis delivered instruction to high school students. In one vocabulary intervention study ( Kennedy et al., 2015 ), the large positive gains students made at immediate posttest were sustained at the 3-week follow-up testing time point. Similarly, one reading comprehension intervention study ( Berkeley et al., 2011 ) reported that substantial gains made at immediate posttest on a researcher-developed comprehension measure was sustained at the 6-week follow-up time point. These findings accentuate the need for intensive reading interventions for students who continue to struggle in middle and high school as this may be the final window of time within which their reading skills can be improved before they exit the school system.

In a review of a century of progress in reading interventions, Scammacca et al. (2016) noted that a majority of reading intervention studies since the year 2000 were designed to deliver multicomponent reading strategies. Two studies included in this synthesis delivered multicomponent reading interventions that targeted more than one reading component. Whereas differences between treatment and control group students at immediate posttest were not significant on multiple reading measures, it was observed that treatment group students maintained gains made from baseline to immediate posttest almost 2 years after the intervention concluded.

However, more studies are needed to substantiate the claim that effects of interventions are sustained at follow-up time points. For instance, only two studies in the current synthesis implemented multicomponent reading interventions and only one study implemented vocabulary interventions. Considering the paucity of studies, generally small sample sizes, and effectiveness of programs being measured on predominantly researcher-developed measures, there is less certainty about the long-term effectiveness of reading intervention approaches, especially in the area of vocabulary and word reading development for adolescent struggling readers.

It is important to acknowledge the challenges researchers face in collecting follow-up data. One of the biggest challenges may be the need for access to continuous resources including personnel to collect data at follow-up time points. Other challenges relate to threats to internal validity that may arise when collecting follow-up data. For instance, follow-up study design is more susceptible to high rates of attrition due to participants leaving the school district, getting homeschooled, or dropping out of the school system. Another threat to the internal validity of this study design is testing effects. Students may get familiar with the testing instrument over multiple exposures and their response to tests could be mistaken for treatment effects.

However, we contend that the benefits to the field of collecting and measuring follow-up data may outweigh the inherent challenges. Studies that collect follow-up data after the completion of interventions can provide unique insights into the long-term efficacy of academic interventions. Collecting follow-up data can provide powerful evidence concerning students’ response to intervention, their reading development over time, and the extent to which their reading problems persist post-intervention. Furthermore, individual reading interventions differ in terms of their intensity, duration, and instructional techniques. The long-term impact of reading interventions that vary on these key variables also needs to be tested to improve our understanding of the components of interventions that yield long-term effects. Similar to the conclusion made by Suggate (2016) , the authors hope that findings from the current study will encourage researchers to collect follow-up data for this student population to improve delivery methods that translate to sustained intervention effects.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grant P50 HD052117 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in this synthesis.

Remedial Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning

• First Online: 29 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Katherine K. Frankel 2  

296 Accesses

1 Citations

In this chapter I argue that the enactment of policies intended to support children’s and youth’s reading over the past six decades has perpetuated a remediation orientation in which educational structures remain largely unchanged and not adequately responsive to the students whom they serve. In each section, I provide an overview of the general policy context and research trends at the time, but with a particular focus on their implications for adolescent readers and the secondary reading programs designed to support them. I argue that a remediation orientation has become increasingly prevalent in secondary contexts, with consequences for adolescents’ literacy learning that have not been fully accounted for in existing policy and research. I conclude by amplifying previous concerns and calls for future policies and related funding initiatives that support a re-mediation orientation to supporting all literacy learners in school. A re-mediation orientation takes seriously the need to (a) understand readers holistically and in light of their strengths as well as challenges in literacy, (b) embrace the complexity of reading, and (c) attend to how readers experience literacy instruction as crucial information to consider as part of policy evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Adolescent learners and reading: Exploring a collaborative, community approach

Introduction to the special issue: misalignment, misinterpretation, and misappropriation of literacy research to practice and policy.

The Politics of the Teaching of Reading

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83 (5), 548–559.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allington, R. L. (1994). What’s special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26 (1), 95–115.

Allington, R. L. (2006). Reading lessons and federal policy making: An overview and introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (1), 3–15.

Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1986). The coordination among regular classroom reading programs and targeted support programs. In Designs for compensatory education: Conference proceedings and papers (pp. 2–39).

Google Scholar  

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1988). Coherence or chaos? Qualitative dimensions of the literacy instruction provided low-achievement children. Research/Technical Report .

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6 (4), 397–414.

Allington, R. L., & Shake, M. C. (1986). Remedial reading: Achieving curricular congruence in classroom and clinic. The Reading Teacher, 39 (7), 648–654.

Allington, R., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 26 (1), 15–30.

Allington, R. L., Boxer, N. J., & Broikou, K. A. (1987). Jeremy, remedial reading and subject area classes. Journal of Reading, 30 (7), 643–645.

Almasi, J. F., Garas-York, K., & Shanahan, L. (2006). Qualitative research on text comprehension and the report of the National Reading Panel. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (1), 37–66.

Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210–227). Guilford.

Balow, B. (1965). The long-term effect of remedial reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 18 (7), 581–586.

Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016–4000) . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Barry, A. L. (1997). High school reading programs revisited. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40 (7), 524–531.

Baye, A., Inns, A., Lake, C., & Slavin, R. E. (2019). A synthesis of quantitative research on reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 133–166.

Bean, R. M., Cooley, W. W., Eichelberger, R. T., Lazar, M. K., & Zigmond, N. (1991). In class or pullout: Effects of setting on the remedial reading program. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23 (4), 445–464.

Bean, R. M., Trovato, C. A., & Hamilton, R. (1995). Focus on Chapter 1 reading programs: Views of reading specialists, classroom teachers, and principals. Literacy Research and Instruction, 34 (3), 204–221.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Alliance for Excellent Education.

Boulay, B., Goodson, B., Frye, M., Blocklin, M., & Price, C. (2015). Summary of research generated by striving readers on the effectiveness of interventions for struggling adolescent readers (NCEE 2016–4001) . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Brooks, M. D., & Rodela, K. C. (2018). Why am I in reading intervention? A dual analysis of entry and exit criteria. The High School Journal, 102 (1), 72–93.

Brozo, B. G. (2009). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (4), 277–281.

Campbell, R. F. (1978). Reading achievement and public policy. Journal of Reading, 21 (8), 685–697.

Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5 (4), 69–74.

Compton-Lilly, C. F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L. K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S185–S195.

Ehren, B. J., Deshler, D. D., & Graner, P. S. (2010). Using the content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RTI in secondary schools. Theory Into Practice, 49 (4), 315–322.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. Law 89–10, Apr. 11, 1965, §201.

Erickson, J. D. (2019). Primary readers’ perceptions of a camp guided reading intervention: A qualitative case study of motivation and engagement. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 35 (4), 354–373.

Evans, H. M. (1972). Remedial reading in secondary schools: Still a matter of faith. Journal of Reading, 16 (2), 111–114.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015).

Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read and what you can do about it . Harper & Bros.

Frankel, K. K. (2016). The intersection of reading and identity in high school literacy intervention classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 51 (1), 37–59.

Frankel, K. K., Brooks, M. D., & Learned, J. E. (2021). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on reading intervention classes in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 123 (8), 31–58.

Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76 (2), 209–248.

Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading first impact study final report executive summary (NCEE 2009–4039) . National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24 (4), 512–526.

Ginsberg, R. (2020). Dueling narratives of a reader labeled as struggling: Positioning, emotion, and power within four differing English course contexts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 25 (1), 1–27.

Gittelman, R., & Feingold, I. (1983). Children with Reading disorders—I. Efficacy of Reading remediation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24 (2), 167–191.

Greenleaf, C., & Petrosino, A. (2009). Response to Slavin, Cheung, Groff, and Lake (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (4), 349–354.

Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009). A comprehensive federal literacy agenda: Moving beyond inoculation approaches to literacy policy. Journal of Literacy Research, 41 (4), 476–483.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33 , 212–245.

Harris, A. J. (1967). Five decades of remedial reading. Invitational address presented at the International Reading Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.

Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 161–190.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Herrera, S., Truckenmiller, A. J., & Foorman, B. R. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research on the effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices (REL 2016–178) . U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2016178.pdf

Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K. L., & Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Communication, 42 (3), 299–329.

Hyde, A. A., & Moore, D. R. (1988). Reading services and the classification of students in two school districts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20 (4), 301–338.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. Law 101–476, Oct. 30, 1990, §618.

Johnston, P. H. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 111 (4), 511–534.

Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (pp. 984–1012). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johnston, P., Allington, R., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85 (4), 465–477.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008–4027) . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 108–117.

Learned, J. E. (2016). “The behavior kids”: Examining the conflation of youth reading difficulty and behavior problem positioning among school institutional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (5), 1271–1309.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56 (1), 111–136.

Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (2000). Re/mediating adolescent literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (5), 396–398.

Masterson, J. E. (2020). Reading in “purgatory”: Tactical literacies in a remedial reading class. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.373

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991). The gridlock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (3), 20–30.

Milner, H. R., IV. (2020). Disrupting racism and whiteness in researching a science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S249–S253.

Mullin, S. P., & Summers, A. A. (1983). Is more better? The effectiveness of spending on compensatory education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (5), 339–347.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). Adolescent literacy: A policy research brief . Retrieved from https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/resources/positions/chron0907researchbrief.pdf .

Reed, D. K., Cummings, K. D., Schaper, A., & Biancarosa, G. (2014). Assessment fidelity in reading intervention research: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84 (2), 275–321.

Reynolds, D. (2021). Of research reviews and practices guides: Translating rapidly growing research on adolescent literacy into updated practice recommendations. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.314

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Choo, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756–800.

Shanahan, T. (2014). Educational policy and literacy instruction: Worlds apart? The Reading Teacher, 68 (1), 7–12.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43 (3), 290–322.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice . Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Using evidence to strengthen education investments . Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64 (2), 211–225.

Walp, T. P., & Walmsley, S. A. (1989). Instructional and philosophical congruence: Neglected aspects of coordination. The Reading Teacher, 42 (6), 364–368.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Standards handbook, version 4.0 . Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf

Willis, A. I. (2019). Race, response to intervention, and reading research. Journal of Literacy Research, 51 (4), 394–419.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Katherine K. Frankel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine K. Frankel .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Rachael Gabriel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Frankel, K.K. (2022). Remedial Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning. In: Gabriel, R. (eds) How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_3

Published : 29 September 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-08509-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-08510-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Remedial Education – Advantages, Disadvantages & Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Remedial education (RE) is basic catch-up education. It is provided to students who have fallen below minimum standards. Remedial learning usually focuses on basic literacy and numeracy skills to reach standardized benchmarks for typical students of a certain age.

There are other terms for remedial learning, such as:

• Developmental Education,
• Basic Skills Education,
• 3R’s Education (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic)
• Preparatory Education, and
• Academic Upgrading

Read also: A List of 107 Teaching Strategies

Types of Remedial Education

Several of the following types of remedial support can be used in conjunction or separately to help students catch up to age appropriate benchmarks.

1. Small group tutoring

Remedial courses often send ‘remedial students’ off into small groups to support students who are falling behind. Often, schools bring in specialists who peel off students into small groups to focus on specific interventions.

Similarly, a common teaching strategy is to allow higher achieving students to work in groups alone. This gives time for the teacher to spend focused time with a small group of students who need additional support.

2. One-to-one tutoring

One-to-one tutoring has either a trained specialist, the classroom teacher, or a volunteer spend individual time with a student. While it is an effective way of supporting students, it is resource intensive. It is often hard to find enough time and staff to have one-to-one interventions while also supporting the rest of the class. Some parents opt for paid private one-to-one tutoring to address this shortfall.

3. Private Tutoring

Private tutoring is one of the most popular formats for remedial support. Parents who have the funds to send their children to after-school tutoring may use this as an option to help ensure their students keep up with their peers.

4. Specialist Tutoring

Trained specialists, such as in the reading recovery program , can provide research-based systematic programs of support to help students reach benchmarks. Often, schools employ trained specialists to come into classrooms and take one-to-one or small-group sessions with students in need.

5. Volunteer tutoring

Schools often rely on volunteer tutors to help provide additional support to remedial students. This may take the form of ‘parent helpers’ who come into the classroom to help the teacher and get to know the class better. A challenge of volunteer tutoring is providing sufficient training and support for the volunteers so they can effectively help students.

6. Peer tutoring

Peer tutoring involves one student helping another student on their work. This may take the form of older students coming into the classroom to help younger students. Or, it may be getting more advanced students in the same class to pair up with less advanced students to help them learn. Peer tutoring is explored in more detail in our article on 107 teaching strategies for teachers .

7. Withdrawal system

A withdrawal system involves removing students entirely from a mainstream classroom for a short (one lesson) or long (indefinitely) time to give tailored support.

The challenge of withdrawal systems is that it might stigmatize students and exclude them from participation in mainstream activities. Exclusion based on special needs is highly discouraged by contemporary education scholars.

8. Computer assisted interventions

Computer assisted interventions (CAIs) provide remedial education via computerized lessons.

Computers have some potential Benefits for students who are falling behind, including:

• Self-paced lessons for mastery of content
• Pause and rewind possibilities
• Accessibility for rural and remote students

However, there are some challenges of CAIs such as:

• Potential lack of synchronous teacher-student interaction
• Cost of use of technologies and internet

If you are writing an essay on this topic, you’ll probably need to use some scholarly definitions. Here are a few good ones:

• Schwartz (2012, p. 6) defines RE as “specific educational interventions aimed at addressing learning needs of a targeted group of children who are lagging behind academically or not mastering specific competencies in the early grades.”
• Kasran, Toran and Armin (2012, p. 1597) define RE as “efforts in education to overcome the weak pupils learning problems in primary schools, particularly focused on basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, under the auspices of Special Remedial Teachers who have received special training in this field.”
• Wu (2012) argues “remedial learning strategies target learners with a poorer rate of academic progress.”

Scholarly citations in APA format for each of these sources are provided at the end of the article.

What is the Purpose of Remedial Programs?

Remedial education has several purposes, such as:

To ensure basic human rights are guaranteed.

Many students who enter remedial learning programs have never had basic education. This may be due to war, poverty, slavery or other issues that can impact vulnerable people in developing nations. Education is a basic right set out by the United Nations and needs to be delivered to all children of the world. RE often catches students who have not received education and aims to help them catch up.

Improving literacy and numeracy skills.

RE tends to focus on basic skills for life: literacy and numeracy. With these basic skills, students can have a strong foundation for future learning.

Avoiding grade repetition.

Often, students are asked to repeat a grade at school if they have not met minimum benchmarks. To avoid adding another year to their education, students can instead be given remedial courses to allow them to catch up.

For credit at university.

Students who have not met entry benchmarks of have below-standard GPAs may be able to enrol in extra credit programs run by libraries or study skills tutors that allow them to recover their scores and continue studies.

Avoiding drop-out.

Remedial programs can help lower attrition rates in education institutions by ensuring students have the support they need to succeed.

What Students go into a Remedial Program?

There is no uniform type of student who is sent to a remedial program. The only condition is that the student need to catch-up to a certain standard expected of them.

While special education has many similar characteristics, remedial education is not only for students with learning disabilities. Rather, RE supports any student who has fallen behind for any reason.

Examples of students who attend remedial programs may include:

• Students who have missed classes due to illness, truancy, displacement, or travel;
• Students and refugees from poor nations where basic education was not guaranteed;
• Adults education who missed their basic training in childhood; and
• Students referred to remedial programs by their classroom teacher.

According to Schwartz (2012), minority and traditionally marginalized groups commonly require remedial support due to barriers to education they have faced in their lifetimes:

“Traditionally, children who have been excluded, who live in remote or conflicted affected areas, orphans and other vulnerable groups are most likely to need remedial education.” (Schwartz, 2012, p. 6)

Typical Remedial Learning Settings

Before and after school hours.

Interventions are commonly designed as after school activities. Similarly, university level remediation may take place as additional classes outside of regular class time.

This is a popular option for parents willing to employ private help to ensure their student keeps up with their class.

During school hours

Most officially endorsed remedial programs take place during school hours.

In-school remediation has the benefit of having stronger links between the remedial educator and regular classroom teacher. The interventions can be well integrated in ways that complement what is happening during the rest of the school day.

Summer programs

Summer programs can help prevent learning loss over the summer. They also provide a prime opportunity for students to catch up with their peers while the peers are not in formal school setting over their break.

Many universities offer remedial summer programs to ensure students are upskilled for the upcoming semester. This is an option many students with non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) may use to ensure they have the skills to succeed at an English language university.

Reading Recovery (New Zealand)

Reading recovery is a whole language learning intervention for supporting children’s reading skills. It was developed in New Zealand in the 1970s but is now widely used in the UK and US.

It was also commonplace in Australia prior to 2015 until the conservative government dropped whole language learning programs with a preference for phonics approaches.

The features of reading recovery are:

• Designed for children ages 5 and 6 identified as having low literacy levels in their first years of schooling.
• Runs between 12 and 20 weeks, 30 minutes per day.
• Involves intensive one-to-one reading sessions with trained specialists.

If you want to further explore this case study, follow:

• What evidence says about reading recovery
• A criticism of reading recovery

Read India Remedial Program (India)

At grade 5, half of rural Indian children cannot read at a grade 2 level.

Read India was a program aimed at improving reading levels in rural India. It was run by the NGO Pratham .

The intervention was structured as follows:

• 3 month out-of-school intervention program for
• Students grouped by learning stage rather than age
• Trained volunteers used as the educators

The program saw a 60% increase in learning abilities at the end of the program

If you want to use this case study for your own work, further reading is available here:

• Popularizing Remedial Education in India
• Mainstreaming Effective Education in India
• Read India Review

Advantages and Disadvantages of Remedial Education

Basic skills training

Everyone needs a good base of “foundational” skills. Foundational skills are the sorts of skills that are needed to learn more advanced things.

Examples are:

• You need to know how to read so you can learn things from books
• You need to know how to do addition before learning how to use money
• You need to be able to write essays before doing college courses

Remedial education tends to focus on giving strong basic or ‘foundational’ knowledge to students so they can succeed in the future.

Reinforcement

Remedial education helps students reinforce knowledge. When a teacher presents information to their class, usually some will get it easily and be ready to move on. However, others will struggle. They will need reinforcement of the knowledge.

Unfortunately, students often don’t get a chance at reinforcement and knowledge consolidation. That’s where remedial classes come in!

Small group or one-to-one support

A remedial program will provide information in smaller, one to one opportunities for students.

While a mainstream class may have 20 to 30 students in it, removal from that class to go into a remedial course will give them more tailored student-focused opportunities.

Lack of support for teachers

Kasran, Toran and Amin (2012) published a scholarly article highlighting the lack of support provided for remedial education teachers. Overburdened workloads, lack of resources and insufficient learning environments are often faced by teachers. This may be because RE requires significant and targeted time and resources above and beyond what is normally provided in mainstream classrooms.

Reintegration requirement

Once a remedial program has ended, students are often returned to mainstream classrooms. However, once intensive interventions are removed, students may begin to struggle once more.

A strong remedial program would provide students with not only knowledge but learning and study strategies that are used well after the intervention has ended.

Frequent Failure of Remedial Programs

Educators such as Michael Nietzal argue that remedial programs are less successful than we might hope. He argues that the use of remedial courses as prerequisites for college have low levels of success. His suggested alternative is embedded additional support and tutoring within mainstream courses so that students get ongoing support rather than a one-off remedial solution.

References for your Essay

Don’t forget to cite your sources! Teachers like to see scholarly citations to back up your claims.

Here are the scholarly sources I used for this article – feel free to use the citations below. They’re currently in APA format:

Schwartz, A. (2012). RE to accelerate learning for all. GPE Working Paper Series on Learning 11 (1): 1 – 65.

Wu, Y. (2012). Remedial learning. In: Seel, N. M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. New York: Springer.

Poverty Action Lab. (n.d.). RE in India. Retrieved from: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/resources/Case2_Balsakhi_India_.pdf

Kasran, S., Toran, H., & Amin, A. (2012). Issues and trends in remedial education: what do the teachers say? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47 (1): 1597-1604.

Generation Unlimited. (n.d.) Remedial Learning. Retrieved from: http://genunlimited.org/Remedial-Learning(1).pdf

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Effectiveness of Reading Remediation Program to Grade One Pupils at San Bartolome Elementary School, Quezon City

• Leamie B. Abud
• Shaira Mae Agan
• Peter Paul R. Gabita
• Razel T. Gran
• Pamela Torot
• Avilynne A. Tando

Multifarious cases about reading difficulties and deficiencies are typical problems that our country has been facing since then. In our government's frustration to solve these problems, the Department of Education (DepEd) implemented a reading remediation program among schools. With that, researchers believe that studying the effectivity of the implemented program, it will be very helpful in discerning the results and impacts in addressing reading problems. The researcher utilized the Descriptive Method of research. In choosing the respondents who are teaching reading remediation program, purposive sampling techniques was used, selecting 20 Grade 1 teachers at San Bartolome Elementary School in Quezon City. The instruments used where survey questionnaires, observation, structured interviews, and focused group discussion. The majority of the respondents are female, 31-35 years old who are handling the reading remediation program with a different teaching position. The teacher-respondents more or less agree on the problems encountered in it. In the said program, teacher-respondents strongly agree on the solutions to problems encountered. Teacher respondents agree that it is effective for grade one pupil at San Bartolome Elementary School. This study may be utilized in crafting a guide to enhance it in terms of making possible solutions for the problems encountered during the implementation of the identified program. Teachers who are handling the Reading Remediation program should be an enthusiast in implementing the identified program and teachers should attend seminars related to the Reading remediation program. Also, teachers should be more resourceful, creative, and have initiative in implementing the program.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Similar Articles

• Arsenia A. Cagsawa, Maria Angela U. Galban, Jhanika R. Omanad, Ma. Luisa Nicole O. Quimpan, Milagros C. Tumimbo, Effectiveness of Remedial Reading Program to Struggling Readers in Grade Three Learners of Camarin D. Elementary School , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 2 (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No2_December2022
• J. Basañez, R. Delos Reyes, T. Quiliza, C. Quirona, N. Serania, Avilynne A. Tandoc, Maed, An Assessment of the Reading Comprehension Skills of the Grade VI Pupils towards a Guide at Kaligayahan E/S , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Nina Torogon, Rachelle Luzon, Katherine Repuela, Crissa Jean Yap, Crystel-Joy Tamon, Effectiveness of Practice Reading Sessions in Improving Reading Comprehension of Grade 12 Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.2, No1, March 2020
• Lilliann P. Abalita, May Ann S. Caroza, Jasmin A. Martillana, Ailyn E. Umali, Gladys Velasco, Dr. Amelia S. Ablen, Challenges Encountered by Grade 8 Students in Reading Comprehension Skills at Doña Rosario High School, Quezon City , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Melanie Legaspi, Alexis Jim Medicilo, Roldan Delos Reyes, Mark Joseph Navarro, Morrisjay Alejandro, Geovanni Bernales, Effectiveness of Reading Comprehension in Academic Achievement of Selected General Academic Strand Grade 12 Students , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.2, No1, March 2020
• G.M Lumapas, M. Marinay, A.M. Olit, L. Tamondong, C. Mendoza, Dr. Amelia S. Ablen, The Effective Strategies in Improving the Reading Comprehension of the Students at San Bartolome High School, Quezon City , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• John Cerbito, Famela Mae Medel, Fayerose Asid, Jhon Lenard Martin, Jemmalyn Miguel, Milagros Edillor, Factors Affecting Reading Difficulties in English Language of Grade 11 Humanities and Social Sciences Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.2, No1, March 2020
• Brilliant Bert Tee, Angela Palgan, Ma Rita Abadiano, Amalyn De Pablo, Maika Villafuerte, Crystel-Joy Tamon, Enhancing Reading Comprehension ofGrade 12 ABM Students by Reading Vocabulary Words , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.2, No1, March 2020
• Kenilyn Dawal, Sybill Kim Gallardo, Angelica Delmar, Blesie Lyn Deliva, Nica Inocencio, Denise Anne Osorio, Basic Literacy Program in Reformation of Persons Deprived of Liberty at Makati City Jail , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2020): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.2, No1, March 2020
• Argarin Eugene, Mark Ian Basallote, Daniel Bobiles, Melvin Hermosa, Preparedness of Quezon City Social Welfare and Development in Conducting Diversion Program in Barangay Kaligayahan Novaliches , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 4 No. 1 (2023): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol4_No1_August2023

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >   >>  

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

IMPORTANCE OF REMEDIAL TEACHING

The term remedial is employed in a broader sense to connote teaching which is developmental in its scope. Though our schools possess pupils who do not have any particular defects or faults which need correction, there are a group of students who urgently need assistance in developing increased competence in reading and the other fundamental processes. In their case, it is not primarily a problem of re-teaching or the remedying of errors, but it is rather teaching them for the first time those basic skills which are solely needed and are apparently lacking. Remedial teaching involves taking a pupil where one is and starting from that point leading one to greater achievement. It is just effective teaching in which the learner and his/her needs occupy the focal point. Remedial teaching is an integral part ofall good teaching. It takes the pupil at his own level and by intrinsic methods of motivation leads him to increased standards of competence. It is based upon careful diagnosis of defects and in general to the needs and interest of pupils.

Related Papers

JRSP-ELT (ISSN: 2456-8104)

JRSP-ELT - Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching

Remedial Programs are meant for those students who are weak in academic performance to improve their basic skills to reach as per the level of their peers. It is effective through various stages like identifying or diagnosing their individual difficulty in learning, modifying them as per their need, using effective materials as required and teaching through simple step by step approach and giving proper feedback and correction and finally coordinating with their parents to assess their level of improvement in learning process. This paper presents mainly the preparation, strategies and the methodologies involved in remedial instruction.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Hasnah Toran

contemporary Education and Teaching Research

Reading Research and Instruction

Mary Shake , Richard L Allington

The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences

Tom Onditi Luoch

Nikos Platis

Ayie Leadcity C

Eric Oduro-Ofori

The primary objective of the study was to find out the contributions of remedial schools to development in the country. To achieve this, the study adopted the exploratory research design. It applied both quantitative and qualitative research techniques. Data was collected from both primary and secondary sources and critically analyzed for result. A total of 120 remedial school students were interviewed during the study. Also, data was collected from teachers, schools headmasters and the education directorate of the metropolitan local government office. The interview guide and questionnaire were the tools applied in soliciting data from the respondents. Findings were that remedial schools aside preparing students adequately to pass their external examinations, contributed massively to development in diverse ways. For instance, these schools provide employment; provide a platform to upgrade the skills of workers and also to upgrade the moral standards of society. Interestingly, aside ...

Jason Gordon

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION (2020) 57(9): 1-9 ISSN:00333077

Dr SHRUTI TIWARI

Remedial teaching in which objective of teaching is to make improvement in learning process and to bring change in behavior so that student may not repeat the mistake during learning English. In this teaching a teacher makes remedy after knowing the errors of students just as a doctor treats the patient with medicine after diagnosis. The primary aim of teaching/learning English should be concentration on the fundamental skills of language learning i.e. listening, reading, writing and speaking. But learners commit grammatical errors without being aware of them. So the teacher uses various measures to rectify those errors after diagnosing them. This study is an attempt to know the status of Errors of English Language after the Remedial treatment on School Student. Objectives of the study is to check the status of errors done in English language after the remedial treatment on school students through the selected quasi-experimental research design. For sampling the researcher selected 200 students as a sample. The researcher after finding their errors of different areas prepared total five remedial plans for the selected group to treat them on remedial teaching. First remedial plan was made on the "Preposition and Articles". Second was on "Adjective and Verb". Then "Antonyms" and fourth on topic of "Sentence Formation" and last was on "Punctuation and Conjunction". Each remedial plan was taught seven times to the selected samples and discussed regularly on the committed errors. For pronunciation the researcher made efforts on loud reading by the students and gave them some difficult words from each remedial plan to pronounce correctly. After completing treatment post-test was administered on the sample and marks were collected for the purpose to statically analyze through t-test by computing pre and post scores before and after the remedial teaching. It was concluded that remedial teaching is an effective corrective measure in decreasing the errors of English language of school students.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

SEVGİ BALKAN

South African Journal of Childhood Education

Prof. Simon George Taukeni

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (CJMS)

Cognizance Journal Multidisciplinary Studies , musabyimana paulin

TJPRC Publication

Mind, Culture, and Activity

Sara Goldrick-Rab

David Breneman

Eternal (English, Teaching, Learning & Research Journal)

Eko Noprianto

Journal of Education

Zeynep Kızıltepe

Clarenz Marcos

Shakuntala Naidu

Cogent Psychology

Maham Khalid

College Composition and Communication

Glynda Hull

The clinical teacher

Susan van Schalkwyk

Annabelle Villamarin

Bruce Vandal

Dr Phillipa C Mutswanga

Andrea Montanari

Arabic language, literature & culture

Sive Makeleni

Studies in Educational Evaluation

Todd Morrison

Haider Laghari

Center for American Progress

Jessica Morales

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Remedial Reading

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Remedial Reading. (2016, Oct 17). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay

"Remedial Reading." StudyMoose , 17 Oct 2016, https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Remedial Reading . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay [Accessed: 31 Aug. 2024]

"Remedial Reading." StudyMoose, Oct 17, 2016. Accessed August 31, 2024. https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay

"Remedial Reading," StudyMoose , 17-Oct-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay. [Accessed: 31-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Remedial Reading . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/remedial-reading-essay [Accessed: 31-Aug-2024]

• Reading Aloud Vs Reading Silently; Benefits Of Reading Pages: 9 (2695 words)
• Compare and Contrast Essay: Reading vs. Listening to Music Pages: 2 (422 words)
• Reading journal- Parvana Pages: 11 (3260 words)
• The Help Reading Response Pages: 2 (368 words)
• Reading habits: why they are important Pages: 8 (2211 words)
• Critical Reading and Writing in the Humanities Pages: 6 (1539 words)
• Joy Of Reading Books and Importance of Libraries Pages: 8 (2364 words)
• The Importance of the Act of Reading” by Paulo Freire essay Pages: 5 (1323 words)
• Critical Reading of Deborah Tannen’s Marked Women Pages: 6 (1539 words)
• Tess of the D’urbervilles Novel Reading and Analysis Pages: 10 (2806 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

• Importance Of Reading Essay

Importance of Reading Essay

500+ words essay on reading.

Reading is a key to learning. It’s a skill that everyone should develop in their life. The ability to read enables us to discover new facts and opens the door to a new world of ideas, stories and opportunities. We can gather ample information and use it in the right direction to perform various tasks in our life. The habit of reading also increases our knowledge and makes us more intellectual and sensible. With the help of this essay on the Importance of Reading, we will help you know the benefits of reading and its various advantages in our life. Students must go through this essay in detail, as it will help them to create their own essay based on this topic.

Importance of Reading

Reading is one of the best hobbies that one can have. It’s fun to read different types of books. By reading the books, we get to know the people of different areas around the world, different cultures, traditions and much more. There is so much to explore by reading different books. They are the abundance of knowledge and are best friends of human beings. We get to know about every field and area by reading books related to it. There are various types of books available in the market, such as science and technology books, fictitious books, cultural books, historical events and wars related books etc. Also, there are many magazines and novels which people can read anytime and anywhere while travelling to utilise their time effectively.

Benefits of Reading for Students

Reading plays an important role in academics and has an impactful influence on learning. Researchers have highlighted the value of developing reading skills and the benefits of reading to children at an early age. Children who cannot read well at the end of primary school are less likely to succeed in secondary school and, in adulthood, are likely to earn less than their peers. Therefore, the focus is given to encouraging students to develop reading habits.

Reading is an indispensable skill. It is fundamentally interrelated to the process of education and to students achieving educational success. Reading helps students to learn how to use language to make sense of words. It improves their vocabulary, information-processing skills and comprehension. Discussions generated by reading in the classroom can be used to encourage students to construct meanings and connect ideas and experiences across texts. They can use their knowledge to clear their doubts and understand the topic in a better way. The development of good reading habits and skills improves students’ ability to write.

In today’s world of the modern age and digital era, people can easily access resources online for reading. The online books and availability of ebooks in the form of pdf have made reading much easier. So, everyone should build this habit of reading and devote at least 30 minutes daily. If someone is a beginner, then they can start reading the books based on the area of their interest. By doing so, they will gradually build up a habit of reading and start enjoying it.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Importance of Reading Essay

What is the importance of reading.

1. Improves general knowledge 2. Expands attention span/vocabulary 3. Helps in focusing better 4. Enhances language proficiency

What is the power of reading?

1. Develop inference 2. Improves comprehension skills 3. Cohesive learning 4. Broadens knowledge of various topics

How can reading change a student’s life?

1. Empathy towards others 2. Acquisition of qualities like kindness, courtesy

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.