Having access to research-based materials is anessential component for designing effective interventions forlow-achieving and disadvantaged students. The purpose ofthis study was to compare the effectiveness of two types ofreading material intervention for low-achieving and disad-vantaged students. The students were divided into experi-mental (n=29) and control (n=27) groups. The students inthe control group received the alternative remediation pro-gram provided by the school. The experimental group wasdivided into two subgroups: 19 students received “auxiliary”reading remediation materials (the AUX group), while theother 10 received “adjusted” reading remediation materials(the ADJ group). Data were gathered from the pre and post-testresultsofavarietyofreadingandwritingtests.Therewerethree major findings. First, both the AUX and ADJ groupsshowed advantages in attaining results, but there were nosignificant differences between them in terms of promotinglanguage skills. Furthermore, the AUX group had a slightadvantage with regard to overall progress and peer catch-uprate, while the ADJ group showed higher effectiveness thantheAUXgroupintheenhancementofacademicperformance.Second, the language skills of the students in the two experi-mental groups have relatively closed the gap with the norm.Specifically, over 50 % of the students in the AUX groupachieved peer-level character recognition and dictation abil-ities in the second-term posttest. Third, both experimentalgroups demonstrated better reading skills than the controlgroup, but there were no significant differences in terms ofreading comprehension. Implications of the study will bediscussed based on the findings from this study

EB00000002227K

Available

• Evaluating Effectiveness of Two Types of Chinese RemedialMaterials for Low-Achieving and Disadvantaged Second Graders