Title registration:
The Effectiveness of Multiple
Comprehension Strategies Instruction
(MCSI) for Improving Reading
Comprehension in 4th – 8th Grade
Students
BACKGROUND
Comprehension strategies are mental tools that readers use to aid their
understanding of a text before, during, and after reading. Examples of commonly
used strategies include: previewing, stopping to summarize, visualizing, and
generating questions. Frameworks designed to teach students to use these tools have
been studied extensively over the past thirty years. Consistent with current
understandings of reading comprehension as a complex act requiring the flexible
coordination of multiple strategic moves, various instructional frameworks have
been developed for teaching students to use multiple strategies. This has come to be
called multiple comprehension strategies instruction (abbreviated MCSI in this
review). Many in the field believe that MCSI is one of the elements that will improve
middle grades literacy instruction. However, many uncertainties regarding MCSI
remain, including uncertainties about how effective it is across various student
populations and which specific elements make it effective.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review will (1) summarize the effectiveness of multiple
comprehension strategies instruction (MCSI) on reading comprehension
achievement for students in grades 4-8 and (2) identify the features of MCSI
associated with maximum effectiveness.
METHODOLOGY
Types of studies included: The review will include experimental and quasiexperimental studies in which a qualifying MCSI treatment is contrasted with a nonMCSI condition. Single-group studies and qualitative studies will not be included in
the statistical analyses, but they will inform the conceptual understandings that
drive the review procedures.
Types of participants included: The review will include studies conducted in
upper elementary and middle grades settings (grades 4-8), which corresponds
approximately to ages 10-14. Average, above-average, and struggling readers will be
1
The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org
included. Also, students receiving reading instruction in a second language will be
included, along with students with identified learning and reading disabilities. To
the extent possible, student characteristics will be coded and tested as moderating
variables. Studies that specifically target students with low-incidence disabilities will
be excluded (students with blindness, hearing impairments, autism, etc.).
Types of interventions (and comparisons) included: This review will include
studies that compare the effects of MCSI to non-MCSI instruction. MCSI is defined
as any instructional framework in which students are taught to use two or more
comprehension strategies to monitor, repair, or enhance their comprehension. In a
preliminary content analysis of the literature, I have identified a number of major
MCSI frameworks that qualify under this definition. These include: Reciprocal
Teaching, Informed Strategies for Learning, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies,
Collaborative Strategic Reading, Think Aloud Instruction, Transactional Strategies
Instruction, Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction, among others. Because these
multiple strategy frameworks became popular in the 1980s, this review will include
studies from 1980-present. Eligible studies will compare the effects of MCSI to nonMCSI instruction. The comparison condition can be a no-treatment control, a
business-as-usual control, or an alternative treatment control, as long as the
alternative treatment is not an alternative version of MCSI. A business-as-usual
condition (i.e., regular comprehension instruction without an explicit, systematic
strategy focus) is expected to be the most common control condition in eligible
studies.
Types of outcomes included: The major outcome measure of interest is reading
comprehension achievement, as measured by standardized and researcher-designed
passage comprehension tests. Two additional measures that will be considered are
strategy knowledge (students’ declarative knowledge of strategies) and strategy
application (students’ ability to use strategies while reading). These are typically
measured using researcher-designed performance assessments, questionnaires, or
quantified verbal data from interviews/think-aloud protocols.
Proposed quality assurance procedures: Multiple coders will be trained to
reliability on the coding protocol. A randomly selected sample (10%) of collected
studies will be double coded for inclusion/exclusion decisions. A portion of eligible
studies (at least 25%) will be coded by committee.
Methods for data extraction of included studies: Coding protocols will be
developed and tested. A coding manual will be developed that operationalizes and
describes each coding item.
Methods for appraising the quality of included studies: Studies will be
coded for several design characteristics, including: type of assignment (random or
non-random; individual or group-wise matching; blocking), evidence of equivalence
at baseline on a variety of dimensions (e.g., reading comprehension and other
reading measures), use of statistical controls to account for nonequivalence at
baseline, attrition rates, and evidence of problems with implementation fidelity.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal funding:
--External funding:
---
2
The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org
DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST
---
REQU EST SUPPORT
The grad literature searching, searching strategy guidance, statistical analysis
AUTHOR(S) REVIEW TEA M
Lead reviewer:
Dennis Davis
Doctoral candidate
Peabody College/ Vanderbilt University
Dept of Teaching Learning
230 Appleton Place, Box 330
Nashville, TN 37203
Cell Phone: 615.473.0855
[email protected]
Co-authors:
While Dennis is the lead author on this study, several collaborators are contributing
their expertise. These include: Dr. Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University
(methodological consultant); Jill Freiberg, Mikel Cole, Cheryl Henderon, Hannah
Block, & Sarah Lovett, Vanderbilt University (coding assistants)
ROLES AND RESP ONSIBL IITIES
Content: The primary reviewer, Dennis Davis, is a former middle grades teacher
and PhD candidate specializing in reading comprehension instruction. He also
teaches courses on reading methods to undergraduates in the teacher education
program at Peabody College/Vanderbilt University. The coding assistants also have
substantial expertise in reading instruction; all are experienced classroom teachers
and/or graduate students in a literacy-related field. Dennis Davis also has access to
other faculty members in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Vanderbilt
University who have agreed to provide substantive guidance as needed.
Systematic review methods: Dr. Mark Lipsey has agreed to serve as the
methodological consultant on this project. Dennis Davis meets with him periodically
to discuss the project.
Information retrieval: Dennis Davis, Jill Freiberg, and Mikel Cole all have
experience with electronic database retrieval. They also have access to library
support staff when needed.
Statistical analysis: Dennis Davis, Jill Freiberg, and Mikel Cole have all studied
meta-analysis under the guidance of Dr. Mark Lipsey. Dr. Lipsey is the
methodological consultant on this project.
PRELIMINARY TIMEFRAM E
Approximate date for submission of draft protocol: May 15, 2010
3
The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org
Approximate date for submission of draft review: October 15, 2010
4
The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org