Foundational Skills to Support Reading in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade

✍ Scribed by What Works Clearinghouse

• Tongue: English
• Leaves: 123
• Category: Library

✦ Table of Contents

Untitled
EDUCATOR’S PRACTICE GUIDE
EDUCATOR’S PRACTICE GUIDE
EDUCATOR’S PRACTICE GUIDE
A set of recommendations to address challenges in classrooms and schools
WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE™
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
NCEE 2016-4008U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Figure
About this practice guide
About this practice guide
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education to provide educa-tors with the best available evidence and expertise on current challenges in education. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) develops practice guides in conjunction with an expert panel, com-bining the panel’s expertise with the findings of existing rigorous research to produce specific recommendations for addressing these challenges. The WWC and the panel rate the strength of the research evidence supporting eac
How to use this guide
This guide provides teachers, reading coaches, principals, and other educators with instructional recommendations that can be implemented in conjunction with existing standards or curricula and does not recommend a particular curriculum. Teachers can use the guide when planning in-struction to support the development of foundational reading skills among students in grades K–3 and in diverse contexts. Professional-development providers, program developers, and researchers can also use this guide. Professiona
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
July 2016
Panel
Barbara Foorman (Chair)Florida State UniverSity andFlorida Center For reading reSearChMichael CoyneUniverSity oF ConneCtiCUtCarolyn A. DentonChildren’S learning inStitUte,UniverSity oF texaS health SCienCe Center at hoUStonJoseph DiminoinStrUCtional reSearCh groUpLynda Hayesp.K. yonge developmental reSearCh SChool,UniverSity oF FloridaLaura Justiceohio State UniverSityWarnick LewisBond elementary SChool,leon CoUnty, FloridaRichard WagnerFlorida State UniverSity andFlorida Center For reading reSearCh
Staff
Nicholas BeylerKelley BorradaileJoshua FurgesonJuliette HenkeBetsy KeatingSamina SattarAndrei StrekeSarah WisselmathematiCa poliCy reSearCh
Project Officers
Diana McCallumVanessa AndersoninStitUte oF edUCation SCienCeS
NCEE 2016-4008U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Figure
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, under the What Works Clearinghouse contract to Mathematica Policy Research (Contract ED-IES-13-C-0010).
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, under the What Works Clearinghouse contract to Mathematica Policy Research (Contract ED-IES-13-C-0010).
Disclaimer
The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency using it, and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was avai
U.S. Department of Education
John B. King, Jr. Secretary of Education
Institute of Education Sciences
Ruth Neild Deputy Director for Policy and Research, Delegated Duties of the Director
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Joy Lesnick Acting Commissioner
July 2016
This report is in the public domain. Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be as follows: Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
Alternate Formats
On request, this publication can be made available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or CD. For more information, contact the Alternate Format Center at [phone] or [phone].
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction to the Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Link
Recommendation 1. Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Link
Recommendation 2. Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Link
Recommendation 3. Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Link
Recommendation 4. Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Link
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Link
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Link
Appendix B. About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Link
Appendix C. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Link
Appendix D. Rationale for Evidence Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Link
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Link
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Link
List of Tables
Table I.1. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Link
Table A.1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for What Works Clearinghouse practice guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Link
Table D.1. Description of outcome domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Link
Table D.2. Key domains for each recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Link
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Link
Table D.4. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Link
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Link
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Link
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Link
List of Figures
Figure I.1. Timeline for use of recommendations across grades K–3 . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Link
List of Examples
Example 1.1. Academic language skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Link
Example 1.2. Inferential language discussion prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Link
Example 1.3. Using inferential language in a read-aloud conversation . . . . . . . . . . .9
Link
Example 1.4. Complex grammatical structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Link
Example 1.5. Elements of linguistic structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Link
Example 1.6. Academic vocabulary instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Link
Example 2.1. Sample activities to identify words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Link
Example 2.2. Sample activities for onset–rime awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Link
Example 2.3. Phonemic awareness using Elkonin sound boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Link
Example 2.4. Sample memorable picture and letter of the alphabet . . . . . . . . . . 19
Link
Example 2.5. Advanced word-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Link
Example 3.1. Blending hat by chunking and sounding out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Link
Example 3.2. Blending by chunking with a pocket chart and letter tiles . . . . . . . . . 24
Link
Example 3.3. Consonant, vowel, and syllable-construction patterns . . . . . . . . . . 25
Link
Example 3.4. Building words with Elkonin sound boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Link
Example 3.5. Manipulating word parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Link
Example 3.6. Word-analysis strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Link
Example 3.7. Sample word list and connected text for a lesson on oi . . . . . . . . . . 28
Link
Example 3.8. High-frequency words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Link
Example 3.9. High-frequency word practice with flashcards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Link
Example 3.10. The “Star Words” activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Link
Example 4.1. Text levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Link
Example 4.2. Prompting students to apply word-reading strategies . . . . . . . . . . 34
Link
Example 4.3. The “Fix It” game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Link
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction to the Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide
Achieving high levels of literacy among young readers continues to be a challenge in the United States. In 2013, only 35 percent of 4th-graders scored at or above a proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress—numbers that have remained largely unchanged since 1992.1
To develop literacy, students need instruction in two related sets of skills: foundational read-ing skills and reading comprehension skills. This What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) practice guide focuses on the foundational reading skills that enable students to read words (alphabetics), relate those words to their oral language, and read connected text with sufficient accuracy and fluency to under-stand what they read. This practice guide, developed by a panel of experts comprised of researchers and practitio
See the Glossary for a full list of key terms used in this guide and their definitions. These terms are bolded when first intro-duced in the guide.
Overarching themes
This guide provides teachers, reading coaches, principals, and other educators with actionable recommendations for developing the foundational reading skills of students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. This guide might also be relevant for educating older students who need reading remediation. Each recommendation provides instructional advice on a specific topic; together, the four recom-mendations presented in this practice guide highlight three interrelated themes for improv-ing instruction in foundati
•
•
•
Reinforcing the effectiveness of instruction in alphabetics, fluency, and vocabulary. In a seminal report, the National Reading Panel (NRP) found strong evidence for the benefits of instruc-tion in alphabetics, fluency, and vocabu-lary in studies conducted up to the year 2000.2 Because the NRP’s approach, study sources, and use of methodological stan-dards are similar to those of the WWC, the panel determined that a review of research prior to 2000 would likely replicate much of the work of the NRP and reac
•
•
Providing instruction in broad oral language skills. This guide recommends expanding on the NRP report—which only addressed vocabulary—and instructing students in a range of oral language skills, specifically inferential and narrative language and academic vocabulary, which prepare students to read and commu-nicate formal language.
•
•
Integrating all aspects of reading instruction. The panel believes that the recommended activities should be part of an integrated approach to foundational reading instruction. For example, as soon as students can decode simple words (Recommendation 3), they should have opportunities to practice reading new and familiar words or word parts in connected text (Recommendation 4). The panel recom-mends integrating the recommendations based on their expertise and the studies reviewed. Specifically, although no s
Overview of the recommendations
1.
1.
1.
Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabu-lary knowledge.
1.
1.
1.
Engage students in conversations that support the use and comprehension of inferential language.
2.
2.
Explicitly engage students in developing narrative language skills.
3.
3.
Teach academic vocabulary in the context of other reading activities.
2.
2.
Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters.
1.
1.
1.
Teach students to recognize and manip-ulate segments of sound in speech.
2.
2.
Teach students letter–sound relations.
3.
3.
Use word-building and other activities to link students’ knowledge of letter–sound relationships with phonemic awareness.
3.
3.
Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words.
1.
1.
1.
Teach students to blend letter sounds and sound–spelling patterns from left to right within a word to produce a recognizable pronunciation.
2. I
2. I
nstruct students in common sound–spelling patterns.
3.
3.
Teach students to recognize common word parts.
4.
4.
Have students read decodable words in isolation and in text.
5.
5.
Teach regular and irregular high-frequency words so that students can recognize them efficiently.
6.
6.
Introduce non-decodable words that are essential to the meaning of the text as whole words.
4.
4.
Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to sup-port reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
1.
1.
1.
As students read orally, model strate-gies, scaffold, and provide feedback to support accurate and efficient word identification.
2.
2.
Teach students to self-monitor their understanding of the text and to self-correct word-reading errors.
3.
3.
Provide opportunities for oral reading practice with feedback to develop fluent and accurate reading with expression.
Summary of supporting research
Practice guide staff conducted a thorough literature search, identified studies that met protocol requirements, and then reviewed those studies using the WWC group design standards. This literature search focused on studies published since 2000 (that is, studies published after the NRP’s systematic review of reading research).4 Each recommendation is assigned a level of evidence that indicates the quality and quantity of evidence published since 2000 that assessed the effectiveness of the practices outlined
group design standards. From this subset, 56 studies met the WWC’s rigorous group design standards, were relevant to the panel’s recommendations, and affect the level of evidence. Studies were classified as having a positive or negative effect when the result was
either statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) or substantively important (produc-ing considerable differences in outcomes).The evidence level for each recommendation is based on an assessment of the relevant evidence supporting each recommendation. Table I.1 shows the level of evidence rating for each recommendation as determined by WWC guidelines outlined in Table A.1 in Appendix A. (Appendix D presents more information on the body of research evidence supporting each recommendation.)
Study Eligibility Criteria (see review protocol)Time frame: Published between January 2000 and November 2014 Location: Study can be conducted in any country, but interventions must be conducted in English with primarily English-speaking students Sample requirements:• Kindergarten through 3rd grade students• At least 50 percent of the sample must be general education and native English speakers
Study Eligibility Criteria (see review protocol)Time frame: Published between January 2000 and November 2014 Location: Study can be conducted in any country, but interventions must be conducted in English with primarily English-speaking students Sample requirements:• Kindergarten through 3rd grade students• At least 50 percent of the sample must be general education and native English speakers
Table I.1. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence
Table
TR
Levels of Evidence
Recommendation
Recommendation
Strong Evidence
Moderate Evidence
Minimal Evidence
1. Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge.
1. Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge.

2. Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters.
2. Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters.

3. Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words.
3. Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words.

4. Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
4. Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.

How to use this guide
This guide provides teachers, reading coaches, principals, and other educators with instructional recommendations that can be implemented in conjunction with existing standards or curricula and does not recom-mend a particular curriculum. Teachers can
use the guide when planning instruction to support the development of foundational reading skills among students in grades K–3 and in diverse contexts.The guide can also be useful to professional-development providers, program developers, and researchers. Professional-development
providers can use the guide to implement evidence-based instruction and align instruc-tion with state standards or to prompt teacher discussion in professional-learning communi-ties. Program developers can use the guide to create more-effective early-reading curricula and interventions. Finally, researchers may find opportunities to test the effectiveness of various approaches to foundational reading education and explore gaps or variations in the reading-instruction literature.The panel believes that the
Figure I.1. Timeline for use of
Grade KGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3Recommendation 3Recommendation 2Recommendation 4Recommendation 1
The figure does not mean that students need to master the activities in Recommendation 2 before beginning the activities in Recom-mendation 3. The recommendations address different aspects of foundational reading skills, and teachers may implement differ-ent parts of Recommendations 2 and 3 at
L
the same time, especially as students master the alphabetic principle. Likewise, teachers should assess when their students are ready to advance to new material; this may mean that some teachers implement recommendations earlier or later than others. The panel believes that teachers should initiate Recommendation 4 as soon as students can read a few words and use it as needed throughout reading instruction. The guide includes examples to illustrate how to adapt the activities in Recommendations 1 and 4 f
the same time, especially as students master the alphabetic principle. Likewise, teachers should assess when their students are ready to advance to new material; this may mean that some teachers implement recommendations earlier or later than others. The panel believes that teachers should initiate Recommendation 4 as soon as students can read a few words and use it as needed throughout reading instruction. The guide includes examples to illustrate how to adapt the activities in Recommendations 1 and 4 f
Alignment with existing practice guides
This practice guide is a companion to another WWC practice guide that focuses on reading comprehension—deriving meaning from the words, sentences, and paragraphs read—in the primary grades: Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade.6 Like that practice guide, this guide provides recommendations intended to describe the essential components of good classroom instruction for English-speaking general education students and provide teachers with deep knowledge and shared understanding o
monitor student progress and identify instruc-tional needs. The following practice guides provide content related to these populations, skills, and tools:
•
•
•
Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade, a companion to the current guide, offers five recommendations to help educators improve the reading comprehension skills of students in kindergarten through grade 3.
•
•
Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers9 offers four recommenda-tions on writing instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 6.
•
•
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School10 provides four recommendations on what works for English learners during reading and content-area instruction.
•
•
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades11 offers five recommendations to help educators identify struggling readers and imple-ment strategies to support their reading achievement.
•
•
Using Student Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making12 includes guidance on the use of ongoing assess-ment to understand students’ abilities and shape instruction.
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1
Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge.
Academic language is a critical component of oral language. Academic language skills include the following abilities (see Example 1.1 for an explanation of each):
• articulating ideas beyond the immediate context (inferential language)• clearly relating a series of events, both fictional and nonfictional (narrative language)• comprehending and using a wide range of academic vocabulary and grammatical struc-tures, such as pronoun references Students who enter kindergarten with limited academic language skills typically lag behind their peers in reading.13 Academic language skills enable students to understand the formal structures and words found in books and school.
Implementation Timeline
Implementation Timeline
Grade KGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3Recommendation 1
of events, such as stories, historical events, phenomena in nature, and instructions. The panel encourages teachers to use a variety of texts, including informational texts, during activities involving academic language skills.The vocabulary activities in Recommendation 1 are similar to Recommendation 1 in the Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School practice guide, to “teach a set of academic vocabulary words intensively across several days using a variety
Example 1.1. Academic language skills
Academic languagethe formal communication structure and words that are common in books and at school Academic language skillsthe skills that enable students to use and comprehend academic language Inferential language skills the ability to discuss topics beyond their immediate contextNarrative language skillsthe ability to clearly relate a series of events Academic vocabulary knowledge the ability to comprehend and use words and grammatical structures common to formal writing
Summary of evidence: Minimal Evidence
Seven studies that examined interventions teaching students inferential language and vocabulary meet WWC group design stan-dards and include a relevant outcome (see Appendix D).15 Two studies found that the recommended practices had positive effects on vocabulary outcomes (aligned with the third component of Recommendation 1),16 and four studies found no discernible effects on
vocabulary outcomes.17 The studies that found positive effects meet WWC group design stan-dards without reservations.18 The two studies that found positive effects were implemented in the United States during scheduled classes with students in kindergarten and 1st grade; one study examined general education stu-dents,19 and one included students at risk for reading difficulties.20 These two studies compared students receiving the interven-tion to students receiving regular classroom
instruction. All four studies examining listen-ing comprehension outcomes found no dis-cernible effects.21 No study that meets WWC group design standards examined effects on syntax outcomes. Overall, the body of evidence indicated positive but inconsistent
findings for vocabulary outcomes, no dis-cernible effects for listening comprehension outcomes, and no findings on syntax outcomes. Therefore, the panel and staff assigned a minimal level of evidence to Recommendation 1.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Engage students in conversations that support the use and comprehension of inferential language.
Develop students’ inferential language—such as predicting, problem-solving, hypothesizing, or contrasting—with conversations before, dur-ing, and after read-alouds or other activities.22 These conversations should engage students in higher-level thinking that encourages using inferential language.23 Use open-ended ques-tions to challenge students to think about the messages in both narrative and informational texts and how those messages apply to the world around them, by connecting events to
their own lives, hypothesizing causal relation-ships, or solving problems (see Example 1.2).24 As students progress, ask increasingly complex questions, such as why an author used a certain metaphor, to encourage them to think critically and use inferential language.
Inferential language focuses on topics removed from the here and now.
Inferential language focuses on topics removed from the here and now.
Example 1.2. Inferential language discussion prompts
Informational Text
Informational Text
Informational Text
Narrative Text
• Why do birds fly south for winter?
• Why do birds fly south for winter?
• Why did the character do what he or she did?
Example 1.3. Using inferential language in a read-aloud conversation
Teachers should first model how to provide reasoned answers that fully address the ques-tions and illustrate critical thinking.25 Prompt students to include additional detail, to connect the targeted idea and their response, and to answer with general statements that are not tied to the specific characters, events, or facts presented in the text (see Example 1.3). A prompt might include the question, “Why do you think that?” Similarly,
if the teacher asks, “Why do birds fly south for the winter?” and a student responds, “It’s cold,” the teacher can encourage the student to restate the question and answer in a full sentence, such as, “Birds fly south for the winter because it is cold.” As students’ skills develop, they can engage in small-group conversations, with a designated student as the conversation leader.26
2. Explicitly engage students in developing narrative language skills.
Beginning readers need to develop narrative language skills to understand text and engage in discussions that extend across mul-tiple sentences.27 Narrative language refers to creating or understanding a fictional or real account of an experience or occurrence, such as how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Narrative language skills include the ability to organize information in a logical sequence, as well as connect that information using appropriate complex grammatical structures. Students can develop na
Students need to learn complex grammati-cal structures and the specific elements of narrative language that are used to describe experiences or events. Example 1.4 presents several complex grammatical structures that the panel recommends teaching to students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Teachers are encouraged to identify and teach additional complex grammatical structures if students are ready. The specific elements of narra-tive language include components of story grammar (characters, setting, plot
Example 1.4. Complex grammatical structures
Example 1.4. Complex grammatical structures
Structure
Structure
Structure
Description
Example
Compound sentence
Compound sentence
two complete, related thoughts, joined by a coordinating conjunction
My favorite food is pizza, and my favorite pizza topping is pepperoni.
Subordinate clause
Subordinate clause
a clause, beginning with a subordinating conjunction, that supplements an independent clause and cannot stand on its own
-
-
We’ll use the computers when we finish the science project.
Adverbial clause
Adverbial clause
a subordinate clause that modifies a verb, adjective, or adverb
I ran as fast as I could.
Prepositional phrase
Prepositional phrase
a phrase beginning with a preposition to demonstrate a relationship such as location or manner
-
My pencil is under the table.
Example 1.5. Elements of linguistic structure
Example 1.5. Elements of linguistic structure
Element
Element
Element
Description
Examples
Connectives
Connectives
using conjunctions, adverbs, and other devices to create connections between parts of a narrative
because, but then, later, instead, suddenly
Noun phrases
Noun phrases
using noun phrases (e.g., article + adjective + noun) for precise descriptions
My brother’s friend ate all the chocolate-chip cookies!
Verb phrases
Verb phrases
inflecting verbs to denote the timing of events
She ran to school. She will ride the bus home.
Pronoun references
Pronoun references
providing clear references to pronouns
Tommy was sick, so his mom made soup with her brand-new pot.
structures, elements of linguistic structure and elements of story grammar contribute to both oral and reading comprehension. They are common deficits among K-3 students with below-average oral language abilities, but are not frequently addressed explicitly in early reading instruction.Teach beginning readers complex grammati-cal structures and key elements of narrative language during whole-class or small-group lessons.28 Introduce students to each new element or structure, model how to use the element to
to prompt students to use a given narrative language structure and provide additional modeling. As students become more com-fortable with the given element, they will require fewer prompts and modeling and will begin using the narrative structures or elements independently. Some elements and structures will present more challenges to students than others.Engage students in the use of narrative language through activities that ask them to predict or summarize a story or factual infor-mation, or develop detai
•
•
•
predict actions in the text based on the title and/or images if they have sufficient prior knowledge of the story context31
•
•
discuss their earlier predictions and why they did or did not come true
discuss their earlier predictions and why they did or did not come true
•
describe the scene in a picture in increas-ing detail or describe a scene for a partner to illustrate
describe the scene in a picture in increas-ing detail or describe a scene for a partner to illustrate
•
explain how to do something they enjoy, like shooting hoops
explain how to do something they enjoy, like shooting hoops
•
identify when a given element is used in read-alouds
identify when a given element is used in read-alouds
•
summarize stories or factual information using a graphic organizer32
summarize stories or factual information using a graphic organizer32
•
summarize or relate the main idea, events, or other specific details of a passage33
When providing instruction in the elements of story grammar, the panel recommends first explaining how to organize a good summary and then providing scaffolding as students begin the activity. Initially, prompt students to include each element of the story in their summaries and to connect them appropri-ately. Gradually reduce prompts for specific story elements, and instead prompt students
to draw on their knowledge of how to pro-duce a summary. Finally, only prompt stu-dents if they omit important information from
the summary.
34
Have students complete these activities in small groups or pairs.35 For example, stu-dents can form pairs in which one student summarizes a story and the other amends the summary with any missing story ele-ments. Challenge students to present logically ordered predictions, to explain why they are making any predictions, and to include as many of the important components of the story as possible. The panel encour-ages teachers to have students connect their responses to events in the story in a logical manne
3. Teach academic vocabulary in the context of other reading activities.
Academic vocabulary consists of words that are common in writing and other formal settings and that students need to learn to understand written text. They include words that frequently appear in instructions for assignments and activities across subject areas, such as listen, group, locate, define, select, contrast, estimate, and concentrate. Academic vocabulary can also include syntax (grammatical rules) uncommon in speech, such as the phrase away they went.Introduce students to academic vocabulary that
selections and curriculum standards for the year. Appropriate words are those that will occur frequently throughout the school year and in a variety of contexts and are likely unfamiliar to most students.38 The common set of words can draw on lists of academic vocabulary and common root words.39Each week, select a small group of words or grammatical rules to teach that are included in texts that students will hear or read.40 The number of words or rules should depend on their complexity and student needs. T
Alternatively, read the sentence with the new vocabulary word, and then replace the word in the sentence with its definition.42 See Example 1.6 for an illustration of these activities.After introducing students to new words, encourage deeper understanding by providing extended opportunities for them to use and discuss the words.43 Activities that support deeper understanding allow students to
•
•
•
make connections between a new vocabu-lary word and other known words
•
•
relate the word to their own experiences
•
•
differentiate between correct and incorrect uses of the word
•
•
generate and answer questions that include the word44
Finally, ensure that students encounter new academic vocabulary words or phrases in many different contexts throughout the day and year.45 Expose students to these words during read-alouds and classroom discus-sions in language-arts instruction as well as inother contexts, such as science experiments and math word problems.46 Review new vocabulary words regularly, incorporate theminto conversations and writing assignments, and draw attention to the words when they appear in text.
Example 1.6. Academic vocabulary instruction
Example 1.6. Academic vocabulary instruction
Before reading, a 2nd-grade teacher selects academic vocabulary, including the word inves-tigate, from a biography of Marie Curie that will be read aloud to students. The teacher devel-ops a student-friendly definition.Investigate: to try to find out the truth about somethingThe teacher reads, “Marie Curie decided to investigate the energy that came from a certain kind of rock called uranium.”The teacher then follows up by saying, “Investigate means ‘to try to find out the truth about something.’ So, Marie
Potential obstacles to implementing Recommendation 1 and the panel’s advice
Obstacle 1.1. Students enter my classroom with a range of oral language skills, and some may not be ready to participate in academic language activities.Panel’s Advice. Students with weaker oral language skills may be reluctant to participate in whole-class discussions, so differentiate instruction to support the oral language development of each student. For example, teachers can integrate academic language activities into small-group reading instruction, where they can more easily tailor instruction to st
Obstacle 1.2. There is not enough time for language instruction.Panel’s Advice. Teachers do not need to dedicate a block of time specifically to lan-guage instruction. Instead, the panel recom-mends integrating language instruction with other literacy instruction as part of the read-ing block. For example, teachers can build inferential and narrative discussions around already-scheduled read-aloud time. Teachers can also integrate language instruction into other content areas by using texts in science and s
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 2
Develop awareness of the segments of sound in speech and how they link to letters.
The National Reading Panel (NRP) report found that teaching students to recognize and manipulate the segments of sound in words (also referred to as phonological awareness) and to link those sounds to
letters is necessary to prepare them to read words and comprehend text.47 Recent evidence reviewed for this guide supports the NRP’s conclusion. The ability to isolate sounds and then link those sounds to letters will help students read about 70 percent of regular monosyllabic words, such as fish, sun, and eat.48 The system for linking sounds to letters is referred to as the alphabetic principle.To effectively decode (convert from print to speech) and encode (convert from speech to print) words, students mu
•
•
•
identify the individual sounds, or phonemes, that make up the words they hear in speech
•
•
name the letters of the alphabet as they appear in print
•
•
identify each letter’s corresponding sound(s)
Teachers should begin the instruction described in this recommendation as soon as possible. These activities support students in breaking down the sounds within spoken language and then mapping individual sounds to printed letters. Once students know a few consonant and vowel sounds and their corresponding letters, they can start to sound out and blend those letters into simple words. The process of combining letters into simple words, common spelling patterns, and increasingly complex words is described
Implementation Timeline
Implementation Timeline
Grade KGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3Recommendation 2
Summary of evidence: Strong Evidence
Seventeen studies that examined interventions to help students develop awareness of seg-ments of sound and letter–sound correspon-dence meet WWC group design standards and include a relevant outcome (see Appendix D).50 All 17 studies found positive effects in letter names and sounds and/or phonology out-comes: 12 studies found positive impacts on phonology outcomes,51 and nine studies found positive impacts on letter names and sounds outcomes.52 Eight of the studies examined interventions implementing al
without reservations.54 The studies included diverse American students in the relevant grades—kindergarten and 1st grade; six studies included students at risk for reading difficul-ties,55 while 11 studies included readers at all levels.56 Twelve of the studies implemented the interventions with groups of two to eight students57 and supplemented regular literacy instruction. The studies typically compared students receiving the intervention to students receiving regular classroom instruction. Overall, the b
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Teach students to recognize and manipulate segments of sound in speech.
Teach students how to recognize that words are made up of individual sound units (phonological awareness).58 Begin by introducing students to larger segments of speech (words) with which they will be more familiar, and gradually draw their attention to smaller and smaller sound segments. This will prepare them to learn about the individual sounds that letters represent (the second component of this recommendation describes how to carry this out) and then recognize those sounds and letters as they are used i
kindergarten. Tell students what syllables are, and model how to identify them. Then have students practice identifying and manipulat-ing syllables within familiar words by
•
•
•
placing their hands on their chin and paying attention to the number of times their chin moves down as they say words slowly60
•
•
holding up a finger for each syllable as they say a word61
•
•
blending syllables articulated by the teacher into a word62
Once students can break words into syllables, teach them to recognize even smaller units within a syllable, called onsets and rimes.63
Throughout the guide, // is used to denote a particular sound. For example, “/c/” and “/ool/” indicate first the sound made by the c in the word cool, and then the sound made by the remaining letters.
Throughout the guide, // is used to denote a particular sound. For example, “/c/” and “/ool/” indicate first the sound made by the c in the word cool, and then the sound made by the remaining letters.
An onset is the initial consonant, consonant blend, or digraph in a syllable (e.g., the /c/ in cool). The rime is the vowel and the remaining phonemes in that syllable (e.g., the /ool/ in cool). Focus students’ attention on recognizing and manipulating the onsets and rimes by having students segment familiar one-syllable words into their onsets and rimes and manipulate the onsets or rimes to create new words.66 Teachers can draw from a num-ber of activities that have students practice identifying onsets and
sound in a word.67 Begin phonemic-awareness instruction by demonstrating how to isolate individual sounds in words and segment words into their component sounds with modeling and guided practice.68 For initial lessons, use two- or three-phoneme words such as dig, sun, and at.69Students can practice isolating the sounds in words by using Elkonin sound boxes and by sorting pictures. Students can use Elkonin boxes and colored discs or letter tiles to mark the unique sounds they hear in words (see Example 2.3).
Example 2.1. Sample activities to identify words
Example 2.1. Sample activities to identify words
64
65
Figure
Example 2.2. Sample activities for onset–rime awareness72
Example 2.2. Sample activities for onset–rime awareness72
-
fan
2. Teach students letter–sound relations.
Once students have learned to isolate pho-nemes in speech, teach students each letter of the alphabet and their corresponding sounds, working with a few phonemes at a time.73 Many students enter kindergarten knowing the names of a few letters they have learned at home or in preschool, such as the letters in their name. The panel recommends building upon this foundation by reinforcing familiar letters and introducing new ones.Present consonants and short vowel sounds represented by single letters first, sinc
Example 2.3. Phonemic awareness using Elkonin sound boxes
Example 2.3. Phonemic awareness using Elkonin sound boxes
The panel recommends next introducing consonant blends (e.g., fl, sm, st) and com-mon two-letter consonant digraphs (e.g., sh, th, ch). Rather than asking students to memorize consonant blends as units, the panel recommends teaching each sound in a blend and then asking students to blend the sounds together. A digraph makes a single sound and must be taught as a unit. Then teach long vowels with silent e, and finally two-letter vowel teams (vowel digraphs, e.g., ea and ou). Letters or letter combina-tions
For each phoneme, begin by naming the letter or letters that represent the phoneme (e.g., p for /p/ or s and h for /sh/). Introduce the letters in both uppercase and lowercase.75 Then, show a memorable picture of a famil-iar, regular word containing that phoneme (e.g., pig).76 For each picture, the panel rec-ommends telling the students a story that incorporates the corresponding sound of the letter, so that students remember the char-acter and the sound when they see the letter in print (see Example 2.4).
Example 2.4. Sample memorable picture and letter of the alphabet
Example 2.4. Sample memorable picture and letter of the alphabet
PPpp
“The letter P is for Pig, who is very pleasant when asking for pizza. Pig says, ‘P-p-please, may I have some pizza?’”
3. Use word-building and other activities to link students’ knowledge of letter–sound relationships with phonemic awareness.
The final step in teaching students the alpha-betic principle is connecting their awareness of how words are segmented into sounds with their knowledge of different letter–sound relationships.78 This allows students to begin spelling and decoding words. Teachers can use Elkonin sound boxes with letter tiles and word-building activities for this instruction as soon as students have learned their first few letter sounds.Use word-building exercises to enhance students’ awareness of how words are com-posed and
working through a few examples with stu-dents as a group. Then, have students work independently to add single missing letters to build CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) words first (e.g., adding a between f and n to create fan). Finally, engage students in advanced word-building activities that com-bine sound addition and sound substitution, as shown in Example 2.5.Gradually include more advanced words in the activity as students become familiar with more advanced phonemic patterns, such as CVC words with a
Example 2.5. Advanced word-building
Example 2.5. Advanced word-building
Provide students with letter tiles f, a, t, c, and n. Have them make the word fat, and then ask them to make other words by adding, moving, or replacing one letter tile at a time.
fatcn
Teacher: Take the f, a, and t tiles and put them together so that the f is first, the a is in the middle, and the t is last. Does anyone know what the word is?
fatcn
Student: Fat.Teacher: Now, change a letter to make it say fan.
fant
Teacher: Next, change a letter to make it say can.
canf
Teacher: Now, make it say cat.
catn
Teacher: Finally, make it say fat again.
fatc
Potential obstacles to implementing Recommendation 2 and the panel’s advice
Obstacle 2.1. Many students mix up letter shapes and sounds.Panel’s Advice. Letter reversals (when students confuse the shape or sound of one letter for a different letter, such as confusing d for b) are common among children in the early grades. Focus on one letter at a time, teaching the first letter shape (e.g., b) in a variety of ways until the student can identify it instantly. Then, teach the student another letter or two, reviewing and reinforcing the first letter a bit longer. Finally, focus on the
to struggle with letter reversals, the panel recommends introducing a handwriting pro-gram. Handwriting programs focus students’ attention and hand-eye coordination on the letter shape. See Recommendation 3 of the Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers guide for more information about handwriting instruction.Obstacle 2.2. Some students have persistent problems with phonological awareness.Panel’s Advice. Students who struggle per-sistently with phonological awareness often benefit from o
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 3
Implementation Timeline
Implementation Timeline
Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words.
Once students know a few consonants and vowels, they can begin to apply their letter–sound knowledge to decode and read words in isolation or in connected text.80 Students also need to learn how to break down and read
complex words by segmenting the words into pronounceable word parts. To do this, students must understand morphology, or the knowledge of the meaningful word parts in the language. Learning to recognize letter patterns and word parts, and understanding that sounds relate to letters in predictable and unpredictable ways, will help students decode and read increasingly complex words. It will also help them to read with greater fluency, accuracy, and comprehension.The more words students read and the more they
Summary of evidence: Strong Evidence
Eighteen studies that examined the effects of teaching students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write words meet WWC group design standards and include a relevant out-come (see Appendix D).83 In total, 13 studies had positive effects on word reading and/or encoding outcomes:84 11 of these studies had positive impacts on word reading outcomes,85 and four of these studies had positive impacts on encoding outcomes.86 No study that meets WWC group design standards examined mor-phology outcomes.The 13 s
Recommendation 3Grade KGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3
How to carry out the recommendation
four of the components.89 Seven of the studies meet WWC group design standards without reservations.90 The studies included diverse student samples from kindergarten through 3rd grade; eight studies examined students at risk for reading difficulties,91 and the other five studies included students of all ability levels.92 Eight interventions were implemented in small groups of students,93 four additional interven-tions examined one-on-one interventions,94 and one intervention was implemented with the whole c
1. Teach students to blend letter sounds and sound–spelling patterns from left to right within a word to produce a recognizable pronunciation.
Teach students how to read a word system-atically from left to right by combining each successive letter or combination of letters into one sound.96 This is called blending. Start with simple consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words that are familiar to students. Demon-strate how to blend, and provide feedback as students begin to apply it independently.97 Then, as students show progress in learning the skill, gradually progress to longer words and words that are new to the students.Teachers can instruct stude
another chunk. Students add each successive sound to the chunk they created just before it to build the complete word, as in Example 3.1.
Blending is the process of reading a word systematically from left to right by combining each successive letter or com-bination of letters into one sound.Chunking is a type of blending in which students read the sounds from left to right but add each sound to the previous sound before going on to the next sound in the word. Sounding out a word is a type of blend-ing that involves saying the sound of each letter or letter combination one by one until the end of the word, and then saying them all together aga
Blending is the process of reading a word systematically from left to right by combining each successive letter or com-bination of letters into one sound.Chunking is a type of blending in which students read the sounds from left to right but add each sound to the previous sound before going on to the next sound in the word. Sounding out a word is a type of blend-ing that involves saying the sound of each letter or letter combination one by one until the end of the word, and then saying them all together aga
Example 3.1. Blending hat by chunking and sounding out
Example 3.1. Blending hat by chunking and sounding out
ChunkingTeacher: How does this word start?Student: /h/Teacher: Then what’s the next sound?Student: /a/Teacher: What sound do you get when you put those two together?Student: /ha/ Teacher: And then what sound comes next?Student: /t/Teacher: What happens when you add /ha/ and /t/?Student: Hat!
Sounding OutTeacher: How does this word start?Student: /h/Teacher: Then what’s the next sound?Student: /a/Teacher: And then what sound comes next?Student: /t/Teacher: What happens when you put them together?Student: /h/ /a/ /t/ Teacher: What is the word?Student: Hat!
For the sounding-out approach to blending, demonstrate how to say each letter sound in a word, starting at the leftmost letter and moving right, and then join all the sounds together to form the word.98 Teach students to “sound out smoothly,” elongating and con-necting the sounds as much as possible (e.g., /mmmaaannn/ rather than /m/…/a/…/n/). This will help students remember and com-bine the sounds to arrive at the correct word. Another way to demonstrate chunking or sounding out is to use a pocket chart w
letter tiles (see Example 3.2), magnetic letters, or an Elkonin sound box.99 Space the letters out initially, and then move the tiles together as you read the word. Students can follow along with tiles on their desks.Listen for students who add a strong schwa sound (/ǝ/, or “uh”) after stop sounds (e.g., /b/ pronounced as buh). This may affect students’ ability to blend sounds into recog-nizable words. Encourage them to minimize the schwa sound for sounds that require a brief vowel sound (e.g., voiced conso
such as /b/ and /d/) and to eliminate the schwa sound for other consonants, to make it easier to recognize a word as they blend the sounds together.The panel recommends teaching students to check their pronunciation by asking
themselves if the word they produced by blending the letter sounds is familiar to them (i.e., if it “makes sense” or if it is a “real word”). If the word is not familiar to them, ask them to read the word again to make sure they blended correctly (see Recommendation 4 for more detail on self-monitoring).
2. Instruct students in common sound–spelling patterns.
Demonstrate to students how letters are often combined to form unique sounds that appear in multiple words (e.g., -ng; see Example 3.3 for a list of types of sound–spelling patterns).100 Present letter combinations to students one at
a time, with ample time to focus on each com-bination and its pronunciation, and with plenty of examples from familiar words to illustrate the pronunciation. Begin with initial consonant patterns, and as students advance, introduce
Example 3.3. Consonant, vowel, and syllable-construction patterns101
Example 3.3. Consonant, vowel, and syllable-construction patterns101
Category
Category
Category
Pattern
Examples
Consonant patterns
Consonant patterns
Consonant digraphs and trigraphs (multi-letter combinations that stand for one phoneme)
th, sh, ch, ph, ng
Blends (two or more consecutive consonants that retain their individual sounds)
Blends (two or more consecutive consonants that retain their individual sounds)
-
scr, st, cl, ft
Silent-letter combinations (two letters; one represents the phoneme, and the other is not pronounced)
Silent-letter combinations (two letters; one represents the phoneme, and the other is not pronounced)
-
kn, wr, gn, rh, mb
Vowel patterns
Vowel patterns
Vowel teams (a combination of two, three, or four letters standing for a single vowel sound)
ea, oo, oa, igh, eigh
Vowel diphthongs (complex speech sounds or glides that begin with one vowel and gradually change to another vowel within the same syllable)
Vowel diphthongs (complex speech sounds or glides that begin with one vowel and gradually change to another vowel within the same syllable)
oi, ou
R-controlled vowels or bossy r’s (vowels making a unique sound when followed by r)
R-controlled vowels or bossy r’s (vowels making a unique sound when followed by r)
ar, er, ir, or, ur
Long e
Long e
ee, ie, ea, e_e, ey, ei, y, ea
Long a
Long a
a_e, ai, ay, a_y, ei, ea, ey
Syllable-construction patterns
Syllable-construction patterns
-
Closed syllables (a short vowel spelled with a single vowel letter and ending in one or more consonants)
in-sect
VCe (a long vowel spelled with one vowel + one consonant + silent e)
VCe (a long vowel spelled with one vowel + one consonant + silent e)
-
com-pete
Open syllables (ending with a long vowel sound, spelled with a single vowel letter)
Open syllables (ending with a long vowel sound, spelled with a single vowel letter)
pro-gram
Vowel team (multiple letters spelling the vowel)
Vowel team (multiple letters spelling the vowel)
train-er
Vowel-r (vowel pronunciation changing before /r/)
Vowel-r (vowel pronunciation changing before /r/)
char-ter
Consonant-le (unaccented final syllable containing a consonant before l followed by a silent e)
Consonant-le (unaccented final syllable containing a consonant before l followed by a silent e)
drib-ble
vowel patterns and syllable-construction pat-terns.102 Learning to recognize these patterns in words enables students to identify more complex words by pronouncing smaller partsof the word as they read.Teachers can use the following activities to introduce and practice sound–spelling patterns:103
•
•
•
Give students word cards with and without the target pattern, and ask them to sort the cards into groups or sort them on a word wall in the classroom.
•
•
Ask students to think of words that use a given spelling pattern and pronunciation. If these words are at the students’ reading level, ask students to try writing them. Writing practice will extend students’ famil-iarity with each pattern and help them internalize the different spelling patterns.
•
•
Use Elkonin sound boxes to build words with specific sound–spelling patterns (see Example 3.4). Each distinct and recogniz-able sound should have its own sound box; consonant digraphs and other letter combinations that produce one sound should have one box for the group of let-ters. For silent-e words, place the e outside the set of boxes.
Example 3.4. Building words with Elkonin sound boxes
Example 3.4. Building words with Elkonin sound boxes
Students write in boxes
Figure
Students move letter tiles into boxes
Figure
3. Teach students to recognize common word parts.
Once students have learned a few common spelling patterns, show them how to analyze words by isolating and identifying mean-ingful word parts within them that share a similar meaning or use.104 Breaking down words into smaller, meaningful word parts
can enable young readers to effectively read more challenging words. Students can also use their knowledge of the meaning of different word parts to infer meaning for a multisyllabic word.
Teach students about suffixes (e.g., -s, -ed, -ing, -est), contractions (e.g., aren’t, it’s, you’re), forms of prefixes (e.g., dis-, mis-, pre-), and basic roots (e.g., aqua, cent, uni), and how to combine them to create words. Have students practice the new word parts by writing words or manipulating parts of the words to create new words (e.g. adding the suffix -ing to the words park, call, and sing), and then read the words aloud.105 The panel also recommends having students practice building and modifyi
When students read the word, have them adjust the vowel sounds as needed to achieve a recognizable word when said at speed. For example, they may need to pronounce vowels with the schwa sound that usually sounds like
a short u or sometimes a short i (e.g., the o in harmony). As students apply the steps inde-pendently, post instructions on the classroom wall or provide students with written instruc-tions to use as a reference.
Example 3.5. Manipulating word parts
Example 3.5. Manipulating word parts
Select a series of words that demonstrate
Figure
Example 3.6. Word-analysis strategy107
1.
1.
1.
Circle recognizable word parts. Look for prefixes at the beginning, suffixes at the end, and other familiar word parts.
2.
2.
Underline the other vowels.
3.
3.
Say the different parts of the word.
4.
4.
Say them again fast to make it a real word.
5.
5.
Make sure the word makes sense in the sentence.
Figure
Figure
re-vis-it-ing, un-happ-i-ness
revisiting, unhappiness
4. Have students read decodable words in isolation and in text.
Provide students with opportunities to prac-tice the letter sounds and sound–spelling patterns taught in the classroom using word lists, decodable sentences, short decodable texts, or texts that contain many examples of words spelled with recently learned letter sounds or sound–spelling patterns.108Give each student a copy of a word list and/or connected text passage for the letter
combination being taught, or write or display the words and passage on a board for the whole group to read together. Ask students to underline the letter combination in each word in the word list, and then in the appropriate words in the passage. Example 3.7 shows a sample word list and a short passage of connected text that a teacher could use with students who have recently learned the letter combination oi (a diphthong).
Example 3.7. Sample word list and connected text for a lesson on oi
Example 3.7. Sample word list and connected text for a lesson on oi
soil join oink
voice noise choice
coin foil avoid
5. Teach regular and irregular high-frequency words so that students can recognize them efficiently.
Help students learn to quickly recognize words that appear frequently in all kinds of text, known as high-frequency words. Because these words occur so often in text, learning to recognize them quickly will speed up the reading process so that students can focus more on the meaning of the text.Teach students high-frequency words with irregular and regular spellings (see Example 3.8).109 Irregular words have exceptions to
the typical sound–spelling patterns and are not easy for early readers to decode. Teach these words holistically—that is, as whole words, rather than as combinations of sound units.110 For regular words, have students apply their letter–sound skills—for example, using Elkonin sound boxes—to identify the word initially. Have students practice read-ing the words frequently until they learn to recognize them quickly.111
Example 3.8. High-frequency words
Example 3.8. High-frequency words
Teachers can use the following activities to teach and provide practice on high-frequency words:
•
•
•
Use flashcards to directly teach any new words. Show students a word and pro-nounce it. Have students repeat the word, spell the word, and then say the whole word again. Then mix up the cards and provide practice so students learn to rec-ognize the words quickly.
•
•
Select a small number of high-fre-quency words that students have just encountered in a text. Read a word aloud, and then ask a student to point to the word in the text, spell the word, and repeat the word aloud.112
•
•
Create a word wall of high-frequency words in the classroom. Have students read the word wall with a partner. Refer to the wall often, and ask students to point out a word on the wall when they come across it.
•
•
Present students with a list of new high-frequency words to learn. Teach each word. Then ask students to write the words on large cards or construction paper, with different students writing dif-ferent words. Have them add the words to the word wall in the classroom.
•
•
Write the words on flashcards and have students practice them in small groups, as in Example 3.9.
•
•
Have students practice their high-frequency words outside of their regular literacy instruction, as in Example 3.10.
Irregular words
Example 3.9. High-frequency word practice with flashcards
Example 3.10. The “Star Words” activity
Example 3.10. The “Star Words” activity
2TwoPeopleGirl
6. Introduce non-decodable words that are essential to the meaning of the text as whole words.
Non-decodable words are comprised of irregular sound–spelling patterns or sound–spelling patterns that students have not yet learned. Books may include complex words that contain sound–spelling patterns that students have not learned, but that are important to the story or information (e.g., Tyrannosaurus rex, pigeon, and villain). Before introducing a new text, determine if it includes any non-decodable words and, if so, identify a few that are repeated often within
the text, are meaningful, and that students will encounter in future texts or settings.113 Introduce these non-decodable words to students in advance of reading the new text, including their spelling and meaning. Teaching non-decodable words expands students’ read-ing opportunities beyond decodable texts. The panel recommends limiting the number of these words introduced at a time, because learning them holistically places considerable demands on students’ memory.
Potential obstacles to implementing Recommendation 3 and the panel’s advice
Obstacle 3.1. My students often invent spell-ings for words when I am not able to respond to their questions immediately. Should I dis-courage this habit?Panel’s Advice. When students, particularly kindergartners and 1st-graders, are writing independently, encourage them to try to spell words on their own, even if they might spell the word incorrectly. This provides them with an important opportunity to practice apply-ing their letter–sound knowledge. As they develop spelling and language skills, students s
Obstacle 3.2. Students are able to identify the sounds of the letters in a word, but they have trouble arriving at the correct pronuncia-tion for the word.Panel’s Advice. Students should be taught to sound out or blend sounds smoothly, without stopping between sounds, as described in the first component of Recommendation 3. Teachers should listen for students who add a schwa sound after stop sounds (e.g., /b/ becomes buh) and should work with those students to reduce or eliminate the schwa sound. When teach
Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
Reading connected text (multiple related sentences) poses different challenges than reading isolated words or phrases. Reading connected text accurately, fluently, and with appropriate phrasing and comprehension
knowledge, self-monitor their understanding, and apply strategies to support comprehension and repair misunderstandings.114 The National Reading Panel (NRP) found compelling evidence that instruction to increase reading fluency is critical to both reading comprehension and future reading success and ease.115 The new research examined for this guide confirms those earlier conclusions.Having students read connected text daily, both with and without constructive feedback, facilitates the development of reading
Summary of evidence: Moderate Evidence
Twenty-two studies that examined the effec-tiveness of interventions with connected text meet WWC group design standards and include a relevant outcome (see Appendix D).117 Although 18 studies showed positive effects on word reading, oral reading accu-racy, oral reading fluency, and/or reading comprehension outcomes,118 eight of these studies also reported no discernible effects on other outcomes in these areas.119 In addition, three studies found no discernible effects for any outcome,120 and one study fou
studies had interventions that included all three components of Recommendation 4,123 and the interventions in an additional five studies aligned with two components of Rec-ommendation 4.124 Fifteen studies meet WWC group design standards without reservations125 The studies collectively included diverse students in kindergarten through grade 3; 11 studies examined students at risk for read-ing difficulties,126 and the other seven studies examined general education students.127 The interventions in 11 studies
1. As students read orally, model strategies, scaffold, and provide feedback to support accurate and efficient word identification.
Students need to practice reading connected text while they are learning the alphabetic principle and decoding, as described in Rec-ommendations 2 and 3.133 For example, first introduce a particular sound–spelling pattern (e.g., th) by presenting isolated words, and then have students read texts featuring words that contain the given pattern.To help students practice decoding and word identification, plan activities in which stu-dents receive support from a more proficient reader—such as a teacher, parent,
in Example 4.1. Students reading an instructional-level text should be able to read most of the words and grammatical structures, missing no more than one word out of every 10.
135
-
-
136
-
137
138
-
-
139
140
-
141
142
-
143
-
144
145
-
-
-
146
-
-
147
148
149
150
-
151
-
152
153
-
-
154
-
-
155
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 4
(continued)
Recommendation 4
-
-
FrustrationLevelInstructionalLevelIndependentLevelSupport NeededMoreChallengeLess
Implementation Timeline
Implementation Timeline
(continued)
Recommendation 4
(continued)
Recommendation 4
For less advanced readers:
Steps:
(continued)
Recommendation 4
(continued)
Recommendation 4
Figure
Recommendation 4Grade KGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3
Example 4.1. Text levels
Example 4.1. Text levels
Example 4.2. Prompting students to apply word-reading strategies
Example 4.3. The “Fix It” game
Glossary
Glossary
Glossary
A
A
Academic language is the formal language that is common in books and at school, but that students are unlikely to encounter in everyday conversations with friends and family.Academic language skills include the ability to articulate complex ideas, the ability to relate a series of events comprehensibly, and the ability to use and comprehend a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures.Academic vocabulary consists of words and grammatical structures that students do not encounter in their daily conv
B
Blending refers to reading a word systematically from left to right by combining the sounds of each successive letter or combination of letters.
C
In choral reading, students all read the same text aloud at a set pace.Chunking is a decoding strategy in which the reader adds letter sounds successively and cumulatively to produce a word.Connected text consists of multiple related sentences.A consonant blend is made up of two or more consecutive consonants that retain their individual sounds (e.g., /bl/ in block or /str/ in string).A continuous sound, also referred to as a continuant sound, is a sound that can be held without distortion (e.g., /f/, /l/,
D
Decoding is the ability to translate a word from print to speech, usually by employing knowledge of letter–sound relationships; also, the act of deciphering a new word by sounding it out.A digraph is a group of two consecutive letters that are read as a single sound (e.g., /ea/ in bread; /ch/ in chat; /ng/ in sing).
A diphthong is a vowel produced by the tongue shifting position during articulation. The vowel feels as if it has two parts, as the sound begins with one vowel and gradually changes to another vowel within the same syllable (e.g., ow, oy, ou, oi).
E
In echo reading, a more proficient reader (usually the teacher) reads a section of the text aloud, and then the student reads that same section of text aloud.Elkonin sound boxes are tools used during phonemic-awareness and encoding instruction. One box is provided for each sound in a target word. Elkonin boxes are sometimes referred to as sound boxes.Encoding refers to determining the spelling of a word based on the sounds in the word.Evidence-based practices, policies, or recommendations are those that are
F
Fluency. See oral reading fluency.Frustration-level text is text that is difficult for readers to read accurately.
H2
Holistic teaching here refers to teaching words as whole words rather than as combinations of sound units.
I
Independent-level text is text that is relatively easy for readers to read accurately without support. Inferential language moves beyond the immediate context. Inferential language focuses on topics removed from the here and now, thus requiring students to predict, reason, problem-solve, hypoth-esize, and/or contrast.Informational text analyzes or explains factual information about the natural or social world. Infor-mational texts may include pieces that argue in favor of one position or another, true narra
L
Letter reversal is when students confuse (i.e., incorrectly identify or incorrectly write) letter shapes and/or sounds.Listening comprehension outcomes measure a student’s ability to follow, process, and understand spoken language, including comprehension of informational and narrative texts.Long vowels are the vowel sounds in English that are also the names of the alphabet letters a, e, i, o, and u (as in, for example, halo, bind, and told).
M
Modeling refers to a teacher overtly demonstrating a strategy, skill, or concept that students will be learning and using.Morphology refers to the knowledge of meaningful word parts in a language (typically the knowledge of prefixes, suffixes, and/or roots and base words).Multisyllabic words contain more than one vowel sound, and thus, more than one syllable.
N
Narrative language refers to the production or comprehension of a fictional or real account of an experience. Narrative language skills include the ability to clearly relate a series of events, as well as applying more-nuanced grammatical structures to connect pieces of information.Non-decodable words are words that the reader is unable to decode.
O
Onset–rime pairs involve two parts of a syllable: the onset consists of the initial consonant(s), and the rime consists of the vowel and any consonants that follow it. (For example, in the word sat, the onset is s and the rime is at. In the word flip, the onset is fl and the rime is ip).Oral language is the system we use to communicate with others through speaking and listening.Oral reading accuracy refers to the ability to read a given passage of text aloud accurately, but without regard to reading rate. I
P
A phoneme is the smallest unit of sound within a language system. A phoneme may be a word by itself, or it may be combined with other phonemes to make a word.Phonemic awareness is the ability to understand that sounds in spoken language work together to make words. Phonemic awareness is auditory; it does not involve printed letters. It includes the ability to notice, think about, and manipulate the individual phonemes in spoken words. Phonemic awareness is a type of phonological awareness.Phonological aware
R
Reading comprehension refers to the understanding of the meaning of a passage and the context in which the words occur. Reading comprehension depends on various underlying components including decoding (the ability to translate words into speech), knowledge of word meanings, fluency, and the ability to understand and interpret spoken language.Repeated reading refers to the instructional practice of having students practice rereading the same text as a way to support the development of oral reading fluency.T
S
Scaffolding refers to the temporary support provided to students to enable them to answer a question correctly or perform some other task that they have not been able to perform independently. This sup-port may occur as immediate, specific feedback that a teacher offers during student practice—includ-ing reminders, prompts, or “hints.” It may involve giving students encouragement or cues, breaking a problem down into smaller steps, using a graphic organizer, or providing an example. Scaffolding may be embed
is decreased, or faded, as students become able to accomplish the task without help. However, when new or more-advanced tasks are introduced (or more-difficult texts are encountered), scaffolding may be required once again.Segments of sound are sounds that are part of a word, as in /c/, /a/, and /t/ in cat. Awareness of the segments of sound in speech is also referred to as phonological awareness.Short vowels are the sounds of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ heard in bat, bet, bit, bob, and bub, as well as the
V
Vocabulary refers to knowledge about the meanings, uses, and pronunciation of words.
W
Wide reading refers to reading a diverse variety of texts.Word identification refers to recognizing in print a word in one’s spoken vocabulary.A word wall is a prominent space on the classroom wall that is used to display high-frequency irregular words and/or words that contain the sound–spelling patterns that students have learned.
(continued)
Glossary
(continued)
Glossary
(continued)
Glossary
Appendix A
(continued)
Glossary
(continued)
(continued)
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Table A.1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for What Works Clearinghouse practice guides
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
STRONG Evidence Base
MODERATE Evidence Base
MINIMAL Evidence Base
Validity
Validity
High internal validity (high-quality causal designs). Studies must meet WWC design standards with or without reservations.
158
-
High internal validity but moderate external validity (i.e., studies that support strong causal conclusions but generalization is uncertain).
159
The research may include evidence from studies that do not meet the criteria for moderate or strong evidence (e.g., case studies, qualitative research).
-
-
Effects on relevant outcomes
Effects on relevant outcomes
Consistent positive effects without contradictory evidence (i.e., no statistically significant negative effects) in studies with high internal validity.
-
A preponderance of evidence of positive effects. Contradictory evidence (i.e., statistically significant negative effects) must be discussed by the panel and considered with regard to relevance to the scope of the guide and intensity of the recommendation as a component of the intervention evaluated.
-
-
There may be weak or contradictory evidence of effects.
-
Relevance to scope
Relevance to scope
Direct relevance to scope (i.e., ecological validity)—relevant context (e.g., classroom vs. laboratory), sample (e.g., age and characteristics), and outcomes evaluated.
-
-
Relevance to scope (ecological validity) , including relevant context (e.g., classroom vs. laboratory), sample (e.g., age and characteristics), and outcomes evaluated. At least some research is directly relevant to scope (but the research that is relevant to scope does not qualify as strong with respect to validity).
may vary
-
The research may be out of the scope of the practice guide.
Relationship between research and recommendations
Relationship between research and recommendations
-
-
Direct test of the recommendation in the studies or the recommendation is a major component of the intervention tested in the studies.
-
Intensity of the recommendation as a component of the interventions evaluated in the studies .
may vary
Studies for which the intensity of the recommendation as a component of the interventions evaluated in the studies is low; and/or the recommendation reflects expert opinion based on reasonable extrapolations from research.
-
Criteria
Criteria
STRONG Evidence Base
MODERATE Evidence Base
MINIMAL Evidence Base
Panel confidence
Panel confidence
The panel has a high degree of confidence that this practice is effective.
-
The panel determines that the research does not rise to the level of strong but is more compelling than a minimal level of evidence.
-
In the panel’s opinion, the recommendation must be addressed as part of the practice guide; however, the panel cannot point to a body of research that rises to the level of moderate or strong.
-
-
Role of expert opinion
Role of expert opinion
Not applicable
Not applicable
Expert opinion based on defensible interpretations of theory (theories). (In some cases, this simply means that the recommended practices would be difficult to study in a rigorous, experimental fashion; in other cases, it means that researchers have not yet studied this practice.)
-
-
-
When assessment is the focus of the recommendation
When assessment is the focus of the recommendation
-
-
For assessments, meets the standards of The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
-
-
160
For assessments, evidence of reliability that meets The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the population on which the recommendation is focused.
-
-
Not applicable
(continued)
Table A.1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for What Works Clearinghouse practice guides (continued)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
156
-
-
157
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(continued)
(continued)
Appendix B
(continued)
Appendix B
Appendix B
(continued)
Appendix B
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
161
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix C
Appendix C
-
-
-
-
-
162
-
-
163
-
-
-
-
164
-
Appendix D
Appendix D
The studies in this table do not affect the level of evidence for any recommendation. Three studies in this table have multiple relevant contrasts; shaded rows indicate each unique, relevant contrast within each published study.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
-
i
j
k
-
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
aa
-
ab
-
The duration of the comparison condition was the same as the duration of the intervention condition, unless otherwise noted.
a
b
-
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
The duration of the comparison condition was the same as the duration of the intervention condition, unless otherwise noted.
a
b
c
d
e
-
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
The duration of the comparison condition was the same as the duration of the intervention condition, unless otherwise noted.
a
b
-
-
c
d
e
f
-
g
-
h
i
j
k
l
-
m
n
o
p
q
r
-
s
t
u
v
-
-
w
-
x
y
z
The duration of the comparison condition was the same as the duration of the intervention condition, unless otherwise noted.
a
b
-
-
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
(continued)
Appendix D
Table D.1. Description of outcome domains
Outcome Domain
Outcome Domain
Outcome Domain
Outcome Domain
Description
Sample Outcomes
Encoding
Encoding
Understanding how letters are combined to represent speech, including spelling
-
• Number of words spelled correctly
General achievement
General achievement
Skills measured across multiple domains
• Reading test score on state test
Letter names and sounds
Letter names and sounds
Knowledge of the names and sounds of the letters of the alphabet
• Linking letter sounds to printed letters
Listening Comprehension
Listening Comprehension
Ability to follow, process, and understand spoken language
• Providing missing words to complete sentences or passages read by the examiner, so that they make sense
Morphology
Morphology
Knowledge of word parts such as suffixes, prefixes, and/or roots and base words
-
• Reading a sentence and selecting the affixes in certain words
Oral reading accuracy
Oral reading accuracy
Ability to read a passage of text correctly
• Accurately reading a percentage of words from a passage
Oral reading fluency
Oral reading fluency
Ability to read a passage of text aloud accurately, at an appropriate rate, and with expression
• Reading a certain number of words correctly in a minute
Phonology
Phonology
Understanding the sound structure of language, including articulating language sounds through phonological awareness and phonemic awareness
• Blending onsets and rimes or individual phonemes into words (e.g., /s/ /un/  sun)
Reading comprehension
Reading comprehension
Understanding the meaning of a passage and the context of the words
• Oral or written retelling
Syntax
Syntax
Understanding how to form sentences using appropriate grammatical rules
• Assessing whether a sentence read aloud is grammatically correct
-
-
Vocabulary
Vocabulary
Knowledge of the meanings, uses, and pronunciation of words
-
• Verbally defining words and using them in a sentence
Word reading
Word reading
Ability to translate words into speech, to recognize and identify words, and to analyze words using lists of words rather than passages of connected text
-
-
• Reading aloud lists of words or nonwords
Table D.2. Key domains for each recommendation
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 4
• Listening comprehension
• Listening comprehension
• Phonology
• Word reading
• Word reading
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Begeny et al. (2010)
Begeny et al. (2010)
d
45 2nd-graders in the southeastern United States
-
Tutors implemented the Great Leaps program one-on-one with students, instead of regular language arts instruction. The intervention focused on letter recognition and phonics, high-frequency words, and reading stories. The intervention involved 8- to 10-minute sessions 3 times a week for 3 months.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.22
2, 3
Borman, Dowling, and Schneck (2008)
Borman, Dowling, and Schneck (2008)
-
e
680 1st- through 3rd-graders in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas
f
Teachers implemented the Open Court intervention with the whole class. Open Court had three parts: (1) preparing to read, which focused on letters and sounds, phonemic awareness, fluency, and word knowledge; (2) reading and responding, which focused on reading, developing vocabulary and comprehension skills; and (3) language arts, which focused on writing, spelling, and grammar usage. The intervention involved 2.5-hour sessions daily for a full school year.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Reading comprehension = 0.26
1, 2, 3, 4
Gilbert et al. (2013)
Gilbert et al. (2013)
212 at risk 1st-graders in the United States (participants were in two adjacent cohorts)
Graduate research assistants implemented a small-group, multi-tiered supplemental tutoring program using a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach. Topics covered in the tutoring included letter–sound correspondence, sight words, phonemic awareness, decoding, and text reading. The intervention involved 45-minute sessions 3 times a week for 14 weeks.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.09
2, 3, 4
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Savage, Carless, and Stuart (2003)
Savage, Carless, and Stuart (2003)
-
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
Paraeducators implemented the SoundWorks intervention with groups of students. The intervention focused on letter–sound activities, phoneme segmentation and blending, and writing. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 4 times a week for 9 weeks and replaced typical reading instruction.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.09
2, 3
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
Paraeducators implemented a rime instruction intervention with groups of students. Students arranged plastic letters to spell the word associated with a picture. In addition, students completed activities related to rimes, including writing words, sorting words into groups based on their rimes, and practicing onset–rimes. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 4 times a week for 9 weeks and replaced typical reading instruction.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.25
2, 3
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
52 at risk 5- and 6-year-olds in the United Kingdom
Paraeducators implemented an intervention that combined phonemic awareness and rime instruction to student groups of an unspecified size. The intervention focused on both rime activities and phonemic awareness instruction. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 4 times a week for 9 weeks and replaced typical reading instruction.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.39
2, 3
Savage et al. (2013)
Savage et al. (2013)
1,067 kindergartners, 1st-graders, and 2nd-graders in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta, Canada
-
Teachers implemented the computer-based ABRACADABRA program within their existing classroom activities. The intervention covered topics including letter knowledge, phonological awareness, high-frequency words, reading accurately with expression, choral reading, and comprehension activities. The intervention involved 60-minute sessions twice a week for 10 to 12 weeks.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = 0.21
-
g
-
1, 2, 3, 4
Simmons et al. (2011)
Simmons et al. (2011)
206 at risk kindergartners in south-central Texas and eastern Connecticut
-
-
Teachers implemented the Early Reading Intervention program with small groups of students. The Early Reading Intervention had four units: (1) learning letters and sounds; (2) segmenting, blending, and integrating sounds; (3) reading words; and (4) reading sentences and storybooks. The first half of each session focused on phonological awareness and the alphabet, while the second half focused on writing and spelling using the sounds previously taught. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions daily for 12
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.28
2, 3
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Torgesen et al. (2006)
Torgesen et al. (2006)
h
-
Spell Read PAT vs. typical instruction
92 at risk 3rd-graders near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
92 at risk 3rd-graders near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
-
l
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) program with groups of 3 students. The intervention had three phases: (1) letter names and sounds; (2) blending and two-syllable words; and (3) beginning and ending sounds and multisyllabic words. All phases incorporated shared reading and writing activities. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily for 7 months.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word Reading = 0.27
j
2, 3
Spell Read PAT vs. Failure Free Reading
Spell Read PAT vs. Failure Free Reading
k
108 at risk 3rd-graders near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
108 at risk 3rd-graders near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
-
l
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the Spell Read PAT program with groups of 3 students. The intervention had three phases: (1) letter names and sounds; (2) blending and two-syllable words; and (3) beginning and ending sounds and multisyllabic words. All phases incorporated shared reading and writing activities. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily for 7 months.
-
Teachers implemented Failure Free Reading with individual students. The intervention combined computer-based lessons, workbook exercises, and teacher-led instruction on sight-word reading, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
-
-
-
-
-
Word reading = 0.16
m
2, 3
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006a)
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006a)
67 at risk kindergartners in urban schools in the United States
-
Paraeducators implemented one-on-one tutoring in phonemic and alphabetic skills. The intervention provided instruction on phonemic decoding skills and oral reading practice using decodable texts. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 18 weeks.
-
-
n
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.57
-
2, 3, 4
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006b),
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006b),
21 at risk 2nd- and 3rd-graders in the northwestern United States
-
-
Paraeducators provided individual tutoring to students. The first 10 weeks of the intervention focused on letter–sound correspondence, word reading, and spelling. The second half of the intervention focused on reading and spelling multi-syllable words. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = –0.26
-
2, 3, 4
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Walton, Walton, and Felton (2001),
Walton, Walton, and Felton (2001),
-
Combining sounds to form words vs. typical instruction
20 1st-graders in British Columbia, Canada
20 1st-graders in British Columbia, Canada
-
Research assistants delivered an intervention on letter recoding to groups of 2 to 4 students. The research assistant first provided 1 to 2 minutes of direct instruction on prereading skills, including working with students to sound out letters in sequence to combine them into words. Following the direct instruction, students played cooperative games that covered the topics from the direct instruction. The intervention involved 25-minute sessions twice a week for 11 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = 0.59
2, 3
Rime spelling vs. typical instruction
Rime spelling vs. typical instruction
20 at risk 1st-graders in British Columbia, Canada
20 at risk 1st-graders in British Columbia, Canada
Research assistants delivered an intervention on letter recoding to groups of 2 to 4 students. The research assistant first provided 1 to 2 minutes of direct instruction on prereading skills, including presenting students with words with the same rime spellings and teaching students to recognize ending rime spellings. Following the direct instruction, students played cooperative games that covered the topics from the direct instruction. The intervention involved 25-minute sessions twice a week for 11 weeks.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = 0.69
2, 3
Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations
Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, and Ginsberg (2011)
Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, and Ginsberg (2011)
-
o
167 kindergartners and 1st-graders in the rural southwestern United States
-
-
-
Teachers implemented the Targeted Reading Intervention one-on-one with students. The intervention focused on rereading text to improve fluency, phonological decoding, sight-word recognition, and comprehension strategies. The intervention involved 15- to 20-minute sessions over 7 months.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Reading Comprehension = 0.45
-
1, 2, 3, 4
Borman and Dowling (2009)
Borman and Dowling (2009)
-
-
750 kindergartners in the United States
-
p
Teachers implemented Superkids with the whole class. The first half of the school year focused on instruction on 13 letters, and the second half of the school year focused on decoding and encoding, as well as blending sounds. The intervention involved 82-minute sessions daily for a full school year.
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.30
q
2, 3
Buckingham, Wheldall, and Beaman (2012)
Buckingham, Wheldall, and Beaman (2012)
-
-
r
22 at risk kindergarteners and 2nd-graders in New South Wales, Australia
-
-
Trained instructors implemented the MiniLit program with groups of 3 to 4 students. Each session included (1) sounds and words activities which covered letter-sound correspondences, blending and segmenting sounds, and sight words; (2) text reading of words and sentences; and (3) storybook reading. The intervention involved 1-hour sessions 4 days a week for 27 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.85
2, 3, 4
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Chambers et al. (2011)
Chambers et al. (2011)
-
s
280 at risk 2nd-graders in high-poverty schools in nine geographically diverse states in the United States
-
-
Tutors implemented the computer-based Team Alphie program with groups of 6 students. Two students would work together at a computer, taking turns being the “coach” and the student. The intervention covered phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension. Each session included time for each student to read aloud. The intervention involved 45-minute sessions 4 days a week.
-
-
Tutors covered similar topics to the intervention condition during daily one-on-one 20-minute sessions that did not use a computer.
Word reading = n.r.
t
-
2, 3, 4
Coyne et al. (2013)
Coyne et al. (2013)
u
162 at risk kindergartners in central Florida
-
-
Teachers implemented the Early Reading Intervention program with small groups of students. The intervention had four units: (1) learning letters and sounds; (2) segmenting, blending, and integrating sounds; (3) reading words; and (4) reading sentences and storybooks. The first half of each session focused on phonological awareness and the alphabet, while the second half focused on writing and spelling using the sounds previously taught. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions daily for 126 days.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = –0.06
2, 3
Duff, Hayiou-Thomas, and Hulme (2012)
Duff, Hayiou-Thomas, and Hulme (2012)
-
59 5- to 7-year-olds in North Yorkshire county in the United Kingdom
Teachers implemented a reading program that emphasized the link between phonological awareness and reading. Instruction took place in groups of 3 students or individually. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions daily for 10 weeks.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = 0.13
v
2, 4
Ehri et al. (2007)
Ehri et al. (2007)
-
134 at risk 1st-graders in an unknown location in the United States
-
Tutors implemented one-on-one sessions using the Reading Rescue program. The tutoring sessions covered the following topics: fluency; word analysis and comprehension; phonological awareness and word study; phonemic awareness; writing to develop phonological awareness, phonics, and comprehension; and comprehension and vocabulary development with a new book. The intervention involved sessions of unspecified frequency and length over 6 months.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.74
1, 2, 3, 4
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
b
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
Related recommendations
-
Vadasy and Sanders (2010)
Vadasy and Sanders (2010)
-
z
64 at risk kindergartners in public schools in an unspecified urban location
-
-
aa
Paraeducators provided individual tutoring to students using the Sound Partners model. The tutoring sessions had 20 minutes of instruction on letter–sound correspondence, segmenting and blending phonemes, word reading, spelling, and irregular words. The final 10 minutes of each session was spent on assisted oral reading practice. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 18 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Letter names and sounds = 0.76
2, 3, 4
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006b),
Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2006b),
-
31 at risk 2nd- graders in the northwestern United States
-
-
Paraeducators implemented supplemental one-on-one instruction with students. The intervention focused on letter–sound correspondence, oral reading practice, and spelling. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Encoding = 0.91
-
2, 3, 4
Walton, Walton, and Felton (2001),
Walton, Walton, and Felton (2001),
-
39 kindergartners in British Columbia, Canada
-
Research assistants delivered an intervention on letter recoding to groups of 2 to 4 students. The research assistant first provided 1 to 2 minutes of direct instruction on prereading skills, including working with students to sound out letters in sequence to combine them into words. Following the direct instruction, students played cooperative games that covered the topics from the direct instruction. The intervention involved 25-minute sessions twice a week for 11 weeks.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Phonology = 0.35
2, 3
Wanzek and Vaughn (2008),
Wanzek and Vaughn (2008),
-
-
50 at risk 1st- graders in the southwestern United States
-
-
Tutors provided groups of 5 students with a reading intervention outside the classroom. The first 15 minutes of each session focused on phonics and word recognition, including letter names and sounds, spelling, and word families. The next 5 minutes of the session consisted of fluency activities that addressed improving reading speed and accuracy. In the final 10 minutes of each session, students read short passages and answered comprehension questions. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions daily for
Teachers taught their regular lessons. Some students received an alternate reading supplement.
-
ab
Word Reading = 0.15
2, 3
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations
a
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
a
(continued)
(continued)
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
a
(continued)
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
a
(continued)
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
a
(continued)
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
b
Outcome domain
and effect size
c
-
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
y
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
Table D.3. Studies supporting multiple recommendations (continued)
a
The interventions typically occurred dur
-
199
200
-
201
202
203
204
-
-
design
design
design
Participants and location
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Baker et al. (2013)
Baker et al. (2013)
205–208 (depending on outcome) 1st-graders in 12 schools in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States
Teachers provided explicit whole-class instruction during read-alouds of narrative and expository texts, focusing on vocabulary and grammar and prompting discussions. Teachers identified the type of book and taught the students relevant vocabulary. While reading the book, the teacher focused on grammar in narrative texts, and the “What I Know, What I Want to Know, What I Learned (KWL)” reading strategy in expository texts. After the book was finished, the class summarized the text, practiced retelling it, a
-
-
Teachers led read-aloud activities following their usual practices for the whole class.
Listening comprehension = 0.15
-
1, 2, 3
Duff et al. (2014)
Duff et al. (2014)
52 at risk 6-year-old students in the United Kingdom
Teaching assistants implemented an author-developed intervention for groups of 2 to 4 students. The intervention had two components: (1) a reading strand, which focused on phonological awareness and reading, and (2) a language component, which was based on storybooks and focused on building vocabulary and narrative skills. The teaching assistants led 20- to 30-minute sessions daily for 9 weeks, with the reading strand implemented 3 times a week and the language component twice a week.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Listening comprehension = 0.01
-
c
2, 3
Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005)
Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005)
57 at risk kindergartners in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States
-
Graduate students read storybooks multiple times to groups of 3 to 6 students, exposing students to target vocabulary words. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 1 to 3 times a week for 10 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Vocabulary = 0.42
3
Simmons et al. (2007)
Simmons et al. (2007)
d
64 at risk kindergartners in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States
-
Teachers and teaching assistants provided groups of 5 or fewer students with highly detailed, scripted instruction that incorporated scaffolding and specific examples for students. The first half of each lesson taught phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge. The second half focused on understanding story structure, encouraging story retelling, and learning vocabulary through repeated readings of storybooks, targeted vocabulary lessons, and exposing students to vocabulary words multiple times within
-
-
-
-
-
-
Teachers and teaching assistants provided groups of 5 or fewer students with moderately detailed instruction on phonemic awareness and letters, based on the Sounds and Letters component of Open Court Reading 2000.
-
-
-
-
Vocabulary = 0.10
e
2, 3,
Study and design
Study and design
Participants and location
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Williams et al. (2009)
Williams et al. (2009)
f
141 2nd-graders in 10 classrooms in an unspecified location
-
Using whole-class instruction focused on specific animals, teachers introduced and defined vocabulary words, and then read about the target animals from an encyclopedia. Next, teachers asked students to read a compare-and-contrast paragraph, to use a matrix to organize the paragraph’s content, and to write a summary of the text. The intervention involved 22 45-minute sessions 3 times a week over 2 months.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons with no instruction in reading science content.
-
Vocabulary = 1.71
g
1, 3
Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards With Reservations
Apthorp et al. (2012)
Apthorp et al. (2012)
h
2,803 kindergartners through 2nd-graders in the southeastern United States
-
-
-
Teachers implemented the Elements of Reading: Vocabulary program with the whole class as a supplement to their existing reading program. The intervention focused on teaching vocabulary words that are common in written, but not verbal, communication, as well as words that are more complex versions of simple concepts (such as abolish and chamber). On day 1 of each unit, the teacher introduced the context and meaning of the target vocabulary words through a story, detailed explanations, and illustrated cards.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Listening comprehension = 0.05
-
i
1, 3
Goodson et al. (2010)
Goodson et al. (2010)
-
j
1,228 kindergartners in the Mississippi Delta region and surrounding districts in the United States
-
-
-
Teachers implemented Kindergarten PAVEd for Success (K-PAVE) to their entire classrooms as a supplement to typical instruction. Each week, teachers introduced 10 thematically-linked target vocabulary words using explicit instruction with picture cards. Teachers reinforced the 10 words throughout with three strategies: (1) using interactive readings of one nonfiction book and one fiction book that included the target words at least twice; (2) having conversations with students using the words; and (3) leadin
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Listening comprehension = 0.13
-
k
1, 3
Table D.4. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 1 (continued)
remaining studies did not explicitly state the
-
256
257
258
259
-
260
261
-
262
263
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Participants and location
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Hagans and Good (2013)
Hagans and Good (2013)
50 1st-graders in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States
Graduate students implemented a phonological awareness intervention for groups of 3 to 7 students. Lessons focused on initial- and final-phoneme identity, segmenting and blending phonemes, and letter–sound correspondence. The intervention involved 20- to 25-minute sessions 4 times a week for 12 weeks.
-
-
Graduate students implemented supplemental mathematics instruction for groups of 3 to 7 students.
-
-
Phonology = 1.36
1, 2
Study and design
Study and design
Participants and location
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Ouellette and Senechal (2008)
Ouellette and Senechal (2008)
46 kindergartners in a large city in Canada
-
Teachers conducted 9 sessions on phonological awareness for groups of 3 to 6 students. Each session began with letter–sound training. Teachers then read a word four times, and the students said the word together once in unison. Next, teachers gave students a sheet with four pictures, and the students matched the pictures based on shared initial and final sounds. The intervention involved 25-minute sessions over 4 weeks.
-
-
Teachers implemented a drawing-based intervention for groups of 3 to 6 students. Teachers read a word four times, and the students said the word together once in unison. Then the teacher asked students to draw the word.
-
-
Phonology = 0.62
1
Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001)
Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001)
82 at risk 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-graders in Newfoundland, Canada
-
f
Teachers that were not the students’ normal reading teachers implemented Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) with groups of 3 to 5 students. Each lesson included three activities: (1) students completed phonemic activities to practice blending and segmenting words, (2) students took turns reading aloud, and (3) students wrote about what they read. The intervention involved 50-minute sessions daily for 8 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Phonology = 1.03
g
1, 2, 3
Savage et al. (2009)
Savage et al. (2009)
h
101 1st-graders in Montreal, Canada
A trained facilitator led groups of 4 students on the computer-based ABRACADABRA program with analytic phonics. The intervention introduced letter sounds slowly to allow students to explore the sounds more in depth. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 4 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Phonology = 0.25
i
1, 2, 3
Scanlon et al. (2005)
Scanlon et al. (2005)
j
319 at risk kindergartners in Albany, New York
-
Teachers implemented a remedial-assistance program for groups of 3 students. The program focused on reading to and with students, phonemic awareness, letter names and sounds, and writing. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions twice a week from mid-October to early June.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons, and students could access remedial assistance normally available within the schools.
-
-
Letter names and sounds = 0.25
1, 2, 3
Torgesen et al. (2010)
Torgesen et al. (2010)
-
k
74 at risk 1st-graders in Tallahassee, Florida
-
Teachers led groups of 3 students through the computer-based Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS®). Sessions occurred either outside reading instructional time or during time dedicated to small-group work in the typical reading classroom. Students learned how to articulate phonemes, used manipulatives to represent phonemes in words, used software that mimicked teachers’ instructional activities and provided feedback, and read text both on and off the computer. The in
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons during small-group time in their reading classes, and students had access to typical additional support from resource teachers.
-
Phonology = 0.69
l
1, 2, 3
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2
(continued)
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
c
-
-
-
-
-
-
d
-
-
-
-
e
(continued)
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
-
-
m
-
-
-
n
-
o
-
-
-
-
-
p
-
-
-
-
-
-
(continued)
Table D.5. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 2
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
q
-
-
-
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Coyne et al. (2004a)
Coyne et al. (2004a)
59 at risk 1st-graders in western Oregon
Teachers and educational assistants implemented a supplemental intervention for groups of 3 to 5 students. The first half of each session used instruction from the Write Well program that reviewed letter–sound associations, orally segmenting words into phonemes, and spelling. The second half of each session focused on word reading, as well as group and partner reading of storybooks. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions daily for 10 weeks.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.05
2, 4, 5
Gunn et al. (2005)
Gunn et al. (2005)
245 students who were at risk or had aggressive social behaviors in kindergarten through 3rd grade in Oregon
-
Instructional assistants implemented a supplemental reading instruction intervention for small groups of students. The study does not describe the instruction in kindergarten. Students in 1st and 2nd grade received instruction from Reading Mastery, which focused on phonemic awareness, sound–letter correspondence, blending sounds, and reading words using decodable text. Students in 3rd grade received instruction from Corrective Reading, which focused on phonic and structural analysis, decoding, comprehension
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.41
c
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Savage et al. (2009)
Savage et al. (2009)
d
100 at risk 1st-graders in Montreal, Canada
A trained facilitator led groups of 4 students on the computer-based ABRACADABRA program with synthetic phonics. The intervention focused on developing students’ skills in blending and segmenting words using phonemes. The intervention involved 20-minute sessions 4 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.12
e
1, 2, 4
Scanlon et al. (2005)
Scanlon et al. (2005)
f
319 at risk kindergartners in Albany, New York
-
Teachers provided remedial assistance to groups of 3 students. In each session, the teacher focused on reading, phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, and writing. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions twice a week for about 8 months.
-
Students received the typical instruction available to them. For some students, this included additional assistance on literacy skills, outside the classroom.
-
-
Word reading = 0.25
1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
-
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Torgesen et al. (2006)
Torgesen et al. (2006)
g
79 at risk 3rd-graders near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
h
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the decoding strand of the Corrective Reading curriculum for groups of 3 students. The lessons focused on word identification and oral reading fluency. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily over 7 months.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.22
i
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Torgesen et al. (2010)
Torgesen et al. (2010)
j
73 at risk 1st-graders in Tallahassee, Florida
-
Teachers implemented the computer-based Read, Write, and Type program for groups of 3 students outside normal classroom time. Teachers introduced students to graphemes and phonemes and to proper typing techniques. Students completed computer activities on phonetic spelling and writing, and then practiced typing words with the phonemes the teacher had introduced. Students also read their own writing and the writing of other students. The intervention involved 50-minute sessions 4 times a week for a full scho
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.40
k
1, 2, 4
Tse and Nicholson (2014)
Tse and Nicholson (2014)
l
47 2nd-graders in South Auckland, New Zealand
-
m
Tutors implemented phonics instruction and Big Book reading for groups of 4 students. Each session began with phonics instruction on letter–sound rules. Then the tutor read aloud a Big Book, with large print that the whole class could see while listening to the story. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions once a week for 12 weeks.
-
Tutors implemented Big Book reading for groups of 4 students. The tutor read aloud a Big Book but did not conduct any phonics instruction.
-
-
Word reading = 0.75
1, 2
Vadasy and Sanders (2011)
Vadasy and Sanders (2011)
89 at risk 1st-graders, who only spoke English at home, in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States
-
Paraprofessionals implemented 108 scripted, one-on-one lessons on phonics. The lessons focused on letter–sound correspondence, phoneme decoding, irregular words, spelling, and oral reading practice. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 days a week from fall to spring.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.51
n
1, 5
Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007)
Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007)
43 at risk 2nd- and 3rd-graders in the northwestern United States
-
Paraprofessionals led one-on-one supplemental phonics-based instruction. In the first 10 weeks, half of each session was spent on phonics instruction and half on oral reading. In the final 5 weeks, the sessions focused solely on oral reading using repeated reading instruction. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 15 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.47
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3
(continued)
(continued)
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3 (continued)
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
-
-
-
p
q
-
-
-
-
-
r
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
s
-
-
-
-
-
t
u
-
-
v
w
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
Table D.6. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 3
-
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
y
-
-
-
-
-
-
z
The study samples included students in kin
-
371
372
373
-
374
-
375
-
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
-
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
-
-
e
-
-
-
f
-
-
-
-
-
-
g
-
-
-
-
-
-
h
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(continued)
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4 (continued)
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
-
r
-
-
s
-
-
-
t
u
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table D.7. Studies providing evidence for Recommendation 4
a
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
-
v
-
w
-
-
x
-
y
-
-
-
-
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Meets WWC Group Design Standards Without Reservations
Begeny et al. (2010)
Begeny et al. (2010)
c
46 2nd-graders in the southeastern United States
-
Tutors implemented the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) program individually with students. Students completed repeated readings of passages three times and orally recounted the content of the passages. Tutors provided students with cues to read the passages with fluency and comprehension. The intervention involved 8- to 10-minute sessions 3 times a week for 3 months.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.46
-
1, 3
Case et al. (2010)
Case et al. (2010)
30 at risk 1st-graders in a suburban school district in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States
-
Graduate students implemented 24 scripted lessons for groups of 3 to 4 students. Each lesson included activities on phonics, sight-word recognition and vocabulary, and reading fluency and comprehension. The intervention involved 40-minute sessions 3 times a week for 11 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.76
1, 2, 3
Case et al. (2014)
Case et al. (2014)
123 at risk 1st-graders in a suburban school district in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States
-
Tutors implemented 25 scripted lessons for groups of 2 to 4 students. Each lesson included activities on phonics, sight-word recognition and vocabulary, and reading fluency and comprehension. The intervention involved 40-minute sessions 3 times a week for approximately 12 weeks.
-
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons, which consisted of Peer Assisted Learning Strategies.
-
-
Word reading = 0.12
1, 2, 3
Christ and Davie (2009)
Christ and Davie (2009)
105 at risk 3rd-graders in the midwestern United States
-
-
d
Students received instruction from the Read Naturally Software Edition (SE) as a supplement to regular reading instruction. Students used the software in computer labs or other school rooms with no more than 6 students at a time and a teacher supervising. Read Naturally SE primarily targets reading accuracy and fluency, and involves repeated reading, vocabulary, comprehension questions, and progress monitoring with feedback. The sessions were scheduled to not conflict with existing reading instruction. The
-
-
-
-
Students engaged in non-reading activities while the intervention was being implemented and received regular reading instruction.
Word reading = 0.13
-
1, 3
Study and design
Study and design
Participants
Intervention condition as implemented in the study
Comparison condition as implemented in the study
a
Outcome domain
Outcome domain
and effect size
b
Related recommendation components
-
O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010)
O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010)
i
43 2nd-graders in the southwestern United States
-
j
Interventionists led students one-on-one in reading aloud difficult texts (texts with expected word reading accuracy in the range of 80 to 90 percent).The interventionists provided guidance on the pronunciation or definition of words the student did not know, but they did not provide specific decoding strategies. The intervention involved 15-minute sessions 3 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.41
-
3
O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007)
O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007)
k
10 2nd-graders in an unspecified location
-
l
Tutors led students one-on-one through a repeated reading intervention. Students read the same text three times during each session. The intervention involved 15-minute sessions 3 times a week for 14 weeks.
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.63
m
-
3
Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008)
Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008)
72 3rd-graders in the United States
Students read books aloud as a whole class, with some form of choral reading. Then, the students read aloud the assigned text with a partner. The intervention involved daily 60-minute small-group instruction and daily 60-minute whole-class instruction for 36 weeks.
-
-
Students silently read books from different genres. Teachers periodically asked students to read part of the book aloud and briefly discussed the reading.
-
-
-
Oral reading fluency = –0.14
-
3
Scanlon et al. (2005)
Scanlon et al. (2005)
n
114 at risk 1st-graders in Albany, New York
Teachers led a one-on-one intervention with an emphasis on reading and rereading text. The majority of each session was spent on reading new text and rereading familiar text. Additionally, the teacher implemented 5-minute instruction on each of the following topics: phonological skills, sight words, and writing. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions daily from mid-October to early June.
-
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 0.44
-
1, 2, 3
Schwartz (2005)
Schwartz (2005)
74 at risk 1st-graders in 14 different U.S. states
-
Teachers implemented the Reading Recovery program one-on-one with students. The intervention involved daily 30-minute sessions that occurred for 20 weeks or until the student met set criteria.
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Word reading = 1.15*
-
1, 2, 3
Swanson and O’Connor (2009)
Swanson and O’Connor (2009)
o
155 at risk 2nd-graders in Southern California
p
Students read text aloud to adult listeners continuously for 15 minutes. No passages of text were repeated; the adult listeners corrected errors by giving missed words but did not teach decoding or vocabulary. The intervention involved 15-minute sessions 3 times a week for 20 weeks.
-
Teachers taught their regular lessons using the Houghton Mifflin curriculum.
-
Word reading = 0.43
q
-
3
-
-
165
166
167
-
-
168
-
-
-
169
-
-
-
-
170
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
171
-
172
-
-
-
-
-
173
1
74
-
175
-
-
-
176
177
-
178
-
179
180
181
182
183
184
-
-
185
186
187
-
-
-
188
189
-
-
190
-
-
191
192
-
193
-
-
-
194
195
196
197
-
198
-
205
-
206
207
-
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
-
217
218
219
220
-
-
-
221
-
222
223
-
224
-
-
-
225
-
226
227
-
-
228
-
229
230
231
-
232
233
234
-
235
-
236
-
237
238
239
-
240
-
241
-
242
243
244
-
245
246
247
248
249
-
250
251
252
253
254
255
279
280
281
-
282
-
-
-
283
284
285
-
286
287
288
264
265
-
-
266
267
-
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
-
-
-
-
276
277
278
-
-
299
-
-
300
301
302
-
-
303
304
305
306
307
308
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
-
297
298
-
309
310
-
-
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
-
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
-
329
330
331
332
337
-
338
-
339
340
341
342
-
343
-
344
345
346
347
-
348
-
-
-
-
-
-
333
334
-
335
336
355
356
357
358
-
359
-
-
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
-
-
367
368
369
370
-
349
350
351
-
-
352
-
-
-
-
353
354
-
(continued)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
References
Eligible studies that meet WWC design standards or meet design standards with reservations are indicated by bold text in the endnotes and references pages. For more information about these studies, please see Appendix D.
a
-
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997).
-
a
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Allor, and Roberts (2014) [advanced decoders]; Cheatham, Allor, and Rob-erts (2014) [developing decoders]; Christ and Davie (2009); Denton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); Lane et al. (2009); Martens et al. (2007); Mathes et al. (2005); May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (200
Swanson (2007); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008). Students in Christ and Davie (2009) received indi-vidual computer-based instruction. 129 Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Den-ton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009). 130 Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008).131 Begeny et al. (2010) [HELPS vs. typi-cal classroom instruction]; Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Christ and Davie (2009); Denton
May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).123 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Denton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); Lane et al. (2009); May et al. (2013); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005).124 Begeny et al. (2010) [HELPS vs.
al. (2005); May et al. (2013); Schwartz (2005); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).145 Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI vs. typical class-room instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without manipulative letters vs. typical classroom instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without sentence writing vs. typical classroom instruc-tion]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without extended literacy vs. typical classroom instruction]; Mathes et al. (2005).146 Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Christ and Davie
139 See Shanahan et al. (2010) for a more thor-ough description of gradual release of responsibility.140 Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Denton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without extended literacy vs. typical classroom instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without manipulative letters vs. typi-cal classroom instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without sentence writing vs. typical classroom instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI vs. typical classroom instruction]
Sanders (2008);Vadasy and Sanders (2009).153 Swanson and O’Connor (2009) [con-tinuous reading vs. typical classroom instruction (Houghton Mifflin)].154 Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI vs. typical class-room instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without manipulative letters vs. typical classroom instruction]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without sentence writing vs. typical classroom instruc-tion]; Lane et al. (2009) [UFLI without extended literacy vs. typical class-room instruction]; Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy
studies must be accompanied by at least one relevant study meeting WWC group design standards. For this practice guide, the latter studies did not need to be consid-ered because a sufficient number of studies met WWC group design standards for each recommendation.160 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Educa-tion (1999).161 Baker et al. (2014).162 Coyne et al. (2004a); Coyne et al. (2004b); Simmons et al. (2007). 163 Denton et
protocol, however, the study meets WWC group design standards with reservations because the requirements for demonstrating baseline equivalence are different under the Beginning Reading and Foundational Reading Practice Guide protocols.166 A statistically significant finding is a finding that is unlikely to occur by chance. 167 Substantively important findings are defined as those with an effect size greater than 0.25 or less than –0.25, as measured by Hedge’s g.168 Performance below grade level could be in
173 Throughout Appendix D, all endnote cita-tions refer to the study contrast reported in the tables, unless otherwise noted. 174 This recommendation is well-aligned with the WWC’s Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School practice guide’s first rec-ommendation (“Teach a set of academic vocabulary words intensively across several days using a variety of instructional activi-ties”). That recommendation was assigned a strong level of evidence, but most of the s
189 Williams et al. (2009).190 Apthorp et al. (2012).191 Duff et al. (2014); Simmons et al. (2007).192 Duff et al. (2014). This study also found no discernible effects on listening comprehension. 193 Simmons et al. (2007). 194 Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005). 195 Apthorp et al. (2012); Baker et al. (2013); Goodson et al. (2010); Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005); Simmons et al. (2007); Williams et al. (2009).196 Duff et al. (2014).197 ibid. 198 Apthorp et al. (2012); Baker et al. (2013); Goodson et al.
Torgesen et al. (2010); Walton et al. (2001) [Experiment 1].207 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Hecht (2003); Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001); Sav-age et al. (2009); Scanlon et al. (2005); Torgesen et al. (2010); Walton et al. (2001) [Experiment 1]; Walton and Wal-ton (2002).208 Hagans and Good (2013); Lane et al. (2007); Lane et al. (2009); Mitchell and Fox (2001); Nelson, Benner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005); Oudeans (2003); Ouellette and Senechal (2008); Rashotte, MacPhee,
217 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Ouellette and Senechal (2008); Walton et al. (2001) [Experiment 1].218 Hagans and Good (2013); Lane et al. (2007); Mitchell and Fox (2001); Nelson, Benner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005); Oudeans (2003); Ouellette and Senechal (2008); Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001); Savage et al. (2009); Scanlon et al. (2005); Torgesen et al. (2010); Walton et al. (2001) [Experiment 1]. One contrast of Lane et al. (2009) that compared UFLI without sentence writing
228 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Hagans and Good (2013); Nelson, Ben-ner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005). 229 ibid. 230 Nelson, Benner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005).231 Hagans and Good (2013).232 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011).233 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Nelson, Benner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005).234 Hagans and Good (2013).235 Lane et al. (2007).236 Mitchell and Fox (2001); Ouellette and Senechal (2008). 237 Ouellette and Senechal (2008).238 M
251 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torge-sen (2001); Savage et al. (2009).252 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Hecht (2003); Oudeans (2003); Ouellette and Senechal (2008); Mitchell and Fox (2001).253 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006).254 Mitchell and Fox (2001).255 Lane et al. (2007); Walton et al. (2001) [Experiment 1]; Walton and Walton (2002).256 Nelson, Benner, and Gonzales (2005); Nelson et al. (2005); Oudeans (2003). 257 Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2
264 Blachman et al. (2004); Coyne et al. (2004a); Frechtling, Zhang, and Silver-stein (2006); Fuchs et al. (2001); Gra-ham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002); Gunn et al. (2005); Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Hecht (2003); Jen-kins et al. (2004); Johnston and Watson (2004) [synthetic phonics vs. accel-erated letter training]; Savage et al. (2009); Scanlon et al. (2005); Torgesen et al. (2006); Torgesen et al. (2010); Tse and Nicholson (2014); Vadasy and Sand-ers (2011); Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007);
270 Johnston and Watson (2004) [synthetic phonics vs. accelerated letter training].271 Torgesen et al. (2010); Tse and Nichol-son (2014); Vadasy and Sanders (2011); Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007); Wright and Jacobs (2003).272 Tse and Nicholson (2014); Vadasy, Sand-ers, and Tudor (2007). 273 Wright and Jacobs (2003).274 Torgesen et al. (2010); Vadasy and Sand-ers (2011).275 Coyne et al. (2004a); Fuchs et al. (2001); Hecht (2003); Savage et al. (2009); Torgesen et al. (2006).276 Gunn et al. (2005); Scanlon
284 Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007).285 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002); Torgesen et al. (2010).286 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002).287 ibid. 288 Torgesen et al. (2010). 289 Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002).290 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002).291 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006). 292 ibid.293 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Torgesen et al.
Torgesen et al. (2010); Vadasy and Sand-ers (2011). 306 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006). 307 Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007). 308 Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); Jenkins et al. (2004); Tse and Nicholson (2014); Wright and Jacobs (2003).309 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002); Wright and Jacobs (2003).310 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006).311 Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002).312 Wright and Jacobs (2003).313 Blachman et al. (2004); Frech
(2004); Scanlon et al. (2005); Torgesen et al. (2010); Vadasy and Sanders (2011); Vadasy, Sanders, and Tudor (2007); Wright and Jacobs (2003). 324 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Gunn et al. (2005); Gunn, Smolkowski, and Vadasy (2011); John-ston and Watson (2004); Tse and Nich-olson (2014).325 Tse and Nicholson (2014).326 Wright and Jacobs (2003).327 Johnston and Watson (2004) [synthetic phonics vs. accelerated letter training].328 Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006); Jenkins et al. (2004).
Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).335 Begeny et al. (2010) [HELPS vs. typi-cal classroom instruction]; Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Christ and Davie (2009); Denton et al. (2010); Den-ton et al. (2013); Lane et al. (2009); May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005); Sch
341 Denton et al. (2013); Martens et al. (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Swanson and O’Connor (2009).342 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Christ and Davie (2009).343 Begeny et al. (2010) [HELPS vs. typical classroom instruction]; Denton et al. (2010); May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swan-son, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005).344 Christ and Davie (2009); Denton et al. (2013); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (20
(2010); Christ and Davie (2009); Den-ton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).351 Case et al. (2014); Lane et al. (2009).352 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Denton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (
(2010); Case et al. (2014); Christ and Davie (2009); Denton et al. (2013); May et al. (2013); O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Swanson and O’Connor (2009); Sylva et al. (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).368 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Denton et al. (2010); Lane et al. (2009).369 Denton et al. (2010); Lane et al. (2009). 370 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (200
374 Case et al. (2010); Case et al. (2014); Den-ton et al. (2010); Denton et al. (2013); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009). 375 Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008).376 Begeny et al. (2010) [HELPS vs. typi-cal classroom instruction]; Case et al. (2014); Lane et al. (2009); O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007); Vadasy and Sanders (2008); Vadasy and Sanders (2009).377 Burroughs-Lange and Douetil (2007); Denton et al. (2010); May et al. (2013); Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2008); Scanlon et al. (
Back page
Figure
Intervention
Intervention
Report
Figure
Practice
Practice
Guide
Figure
Quick
Quick
Review
Figure
Single Study
Single Study
Review
A practice guide presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. It is based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the expert opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts.
This practice guide was prepared for the WWC by Mathematica Policy Research under contract ED-IES-13-C-0010.
This practice guide was prepared for the WWC by Mathematica Policy Research under contract ED-IES-13-C-0010.