Many different types of intervention strategies have been proposed over the years as a way to combat low literacy. On the whole, research has demonstrated that they are useful. Obviously, some are more effective than others, and there are also many confounding variables (such as classroom environment and teacher training) when trying to determine which programs are better.

But with all this in mind, let's take a look at a couple of different strategies that have been the subject of research studies:

Questioning During Comprehension

The idea of this approach is a fairly simple one: instead of asking children reading comprehension questions after they finish a reading activity (simple recall), ask them questions during the activity, testing their comprehension as they go. This way, the children receive active feedback and interaction in the middle of the session, prompting them to think more critically and recall the information better.

In 2011, a group of Dutch researchers decided to test this theoretical method with a real-life sample. They found that, among a sample of third-graders, questioning the children during the reading activity resulted in significantly higher comprehension scores than questioning the children after the activity.

Interestingly, the result also held true when 2-3 year-old children were read stories by an adult, rather than reading it themselves. This shows that the impact of questioning during comprehension tasks is not limited to reading-age children, and is an effective strategy even in pre-readers.

The HELPS Program

The Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) program was developed by a team of researchers in 2009. Its core idea is to bring in outside tutors trained in the ways of the program to hold 10-12 minute one-on-one sessions with students. HELPS uses multiple evidence-based reading strategies (such as verbal cues, error correction, goal-setting and performance feedback) to try and increase the development of students' reading fluency.

A 2011 study found that students who received HELPS sessions at least once per week performed better than a control group when it came to reading fluency and reading comprehension.

One issue common among single-session research studies is the failure to assess whether the treatment's effects hold true over time. For example, the study mentioned in the 'Questioning During Comprehension' section above was a single-sitting experiment, where the researchers exposed the children to one of two conditions. While there were demonstrable effects of the treatment, it's not clear whether these effects would still be observed in a follow-up session.

Other research has attempted to combat this problem through their study designs. The HELPS study (also mentioned in the previous section), for example, took place over almost the entirety of a school year, and in actual classrooms. Since the treatment took place in the exact environment in which it would actually be implemented, the positive results offer much more compelling evidence that this strategy would be replicable in the real world.

However, the most effective way to see if intervention methods are working is to assess whether children's improvements are still noticeable after the conclusion of the treatment. A 2011 study focused on computer-based intervention (which you can read about in more depth here) found positive treatment effects even 16 months after the 28-week-long intervention had ceased. This is evidence that intervention strategies can build the literacy skills necessary for children to succeed in their education both in the present and down the road.

If we've established that interventions are effective, then it's clear that more schools should be implementing them. How can we make this possible?

Education Funding

Many of these intervention programs require a significant financial investment on the part of the schools. Bringing in outside tutors for one-on-one sessions or paying for computers and the requisite programs isn't cheap, and in schools with hundreds of students, the costs can add up quickly. Most public schools are cash-strapped and probably can't afford to make this possible.

One way to fix this is to increase the amount of money spent on education, at the local, state, and national levels. Budget cuts during last decade's recession hit schools hard, and many of them are still reeling economically. In order to provide services such as literacy intervention, there needs to be a renewed focus on increasing educational spending.

Teacher Training

This part of the equation needs to happen regardless of any potential increase in educational funding. In the absence of financial resources, even simple reorienting of teaching methods can improve students' literacy, as demonstrated by the questioning during reading strategy's positive impact on reading comprehension. However, implementation of these new methods would likely require an all-staff training and a new school-wide educational focus. If everyone isn't on the same page, the success rate of these methods will plummet.

If funding is increased and additional programs are made possible, teacher training will still be a critical component of the solution. Teachers will have to be well-versed in computer programs, or in HELPS methods, to be able to accurately convey the benefits of such programs to the students. Schools need to make time for teachers to be able to learn these new methods and programs.