Syntax Interventions for Struggling Learners: A Systematic Review
Faculty Advisor Name
Geralyn Timler
Department
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Description
Background
The 21st century workplace demands advanced literacy skills (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). Many students, however, do not have the literacy skills necessary to be competitive in the workforce. In 2014, 5.3% of high schoolers without disabilities and 4% with disabilities dropped out of school (McFarland, Cui, & Stark, 2018), with one of the most cited reasons being that students do not have the literacy skills necessary to keep up with the increasingly complex high school curriculum (Kamil, 2003; Pinkus, 2006; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Low literacy is correlated with poor results in the job market; individuals with the lowest literacy skills are more likely to be in a low wage group and to have received the help of public funding (Wood, 2010).
Research Question
Because researchers have suggested that interventions targeting the use of complex syntax could improve literacy skills (Scott & Balthazar, 2013), the purpose of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of interventions that target the use of correct syntax. The research question asks: Do interventions targeting syntax improve language or literacy skills in primary and secondary students who struggle with literacy?
Methods
A systematic review was conducted of interventions targeting syntax for school-aged children and adolescents with language impairments, learning disabilities, or who were identified as struggling learners or at risk for failure. Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the review:
- The intervention study targeted syntax.
- Intervention participants were school-aged children with a learning disability, language impairment, or otherwise identified as a struggling learner or at risk for failure. Participants with diagnoses of intellectual disability, emotional/behavioral disorders, and/or autism spectrum disorder were excluded.
- Participants were ages 5-22. Participants enrolled in post-secondary school were excluded.
- Studies employed a quasi-experimental or experimental design. Studies that employed a pre-post design without a control or alternate treatment group were excluded.
- Outcome measures for the study must address reading comprehension, writing, and/or oral language.
. A keyword search of 12 academic databases located 7,349 potentially relevant studies. Two coders independently reviewed each title and abstract to determine whether the study met pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 7,219 were excluded. Initial agreement between the two independent coders was 98.1%, and differences were resolved via consensus. A total of 130 studies met the criteria to continue to full text review. Four studies could not be located, and an additional four studies were not available in English resulting in 122 studies. Two independent coders examined the text of those studies, and 26 met the inclusion criteria. Initial agreement between two independent coders was 98.4%. All differences were resolved via a consensus-reaching discussion.
Results
Each of the 25 studies was coded for moderator variables, such as contextual information about the study, characteristics of the participant sample, methodological information, treatment and/or intervener characteristics, outcome measure characteristics and study quality. Findings examine the overall effectiveness of syntactic interventions targeting reading comprehension, writing, and oral language.
Syntax Interventions for Struggling Learners: A Systematic Review
Background
The 21st century workplace demands advanced literacy skills (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). Many students, however, do not have the literacy skills necessary to be competitive in the workforce. In 2014, 5.3% of high schoolers without disabilities and 4% with disabilities dropped out of school (McFarland, Cui, & Stark, 2018), with one of the most cited reasons being that students do not have the literacy skills necessary to keep up with the increasingly complex high school curriculum (Kamil, 2003; Pinkus, 2006; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Low literacy is correlated with poor results in the job market; individuals with the lowest literacy skills are more likely to be in a low wage group and to have received the help of public funding (Wood, 2010).
Research Question
Because researchers have suggested that interventions targeting the use of complex syntax could improve literacy skills (Scott & Balthazar, 2013), the purpose of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of interventions that target the use of correct syntax. The research question asks: Do interventions targeting syntax improve language or literacy skills in primary and secondary students who struggle with literacy?
Methods
A systematic review was conducted of interventions targeting syntax for school-aged children and adolescents with language impairments, learning disabilities, or who were identified as struggling learners or at risk for failure. Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the review:
- The intervention study targeted syntax.
- Intervention participants were school-aged children with a learning disability, language impairment, or otherwise identified as a struggling learner or at risk for failure. Participants with diagnoses of intellectual disability, emotional/behavioral disorders, and/or autism spectrum disorder were excluded.
- Participants were ages 5-22. Participants enrolled in post-secondary school were excluded.
- Studies employed a quasi-experimental or experimental design. Studies that employed a pre-post design without a control or alternate treatment group were excluded.
- Outcome measures for the study must address reading comprehension, writing, and/or oral language.
. A keyword search of 12 academic databases located 7,349 potentially relevant studies. Two coders independently reviewed each title and abstract to determine whether the study met pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 7,219 were excluded. Initial agreement between the two independent coders was 98.1%, and differences were resolved via consensus. A total of 130 studies met the criteria to continue to full text review. Four studies could not be located, and an additional four studies were not available in English resulting in 122 studies. Two independent coders examined the text of those studies, and 26 met the inclusion criteria. Initial agreement between two independent coders was 98.4%. All differences were resolved via a consensus-reaching discussion.
Results
Each of the 25 studies was coded for moderator variables, such as contextual information about the study, characteristics of the participant sample, methodological information, treatment and/or intervener characteristics, outcome measure characteristics and study quality. Findings examine the overall effectiveness of syntactic interventions targeting reading comprehension, writing, and oral language.
