Comparing the effectiveness of two reciprocal reading comprehension interventions for primary school pupils in disadvantaged schools

Background: Effective reading comprehension teaching is an aspiration of education systems across the world. Teaching incorporating reciprocal reading theory and evidence is an internationally popular approach for improving comprehension.Aims: This paper uses two large cluster randomized controlled trials of similar reciprocal reading interventions implemented in different ways to compare their effectiveness.Sample: The two interventions had the same teacher professional development, reciprocal reading activities and dosage/exposure, but varied in their implementation, with one delivered as a whole-class ('universal') version for pupils aged 8-9 years and the other a small group ('targeted') version for pupils aged 9-11 years with specific comprehension difficulties.Methods: Two large-scale cluster RCTs were conducted in 98 schools with N = 3699 pupils in the universal trial and N = 1523 in the targeted trial.Results: Multi-level models showed significant effects for the targeted version of the intervention on pupil reading comprehension (g = .18) and overall reading (g = .14). No significant effects were found for the whole class version. A sub-group analyses of disadvantaged pupils showed the targeted intervention's effects were even larger on reading comprehension (g = .25).Conclusions: The evidence suggested that this reciprocal reading intervention worked best when implemented in small groups and targeted for pupils with specific comprehension difficulties and particularly for pupils in disadvantaged circumstances.Comments: This evaluation shows that even if a reading comprehension intervention is underpinned by strong theory and evidence-based practice, its effectiveness can still depend on implementation choices.