Teach Effectively!

Over on Reading Rockets, friend-of-TE Joanne has a quick reminder of the importance of monitoring student progress as a part of response-to-instruction efforts and pointers to helpful resources. Read the post here.

Hmmmm….friend-of-TE: FoTE?

Under the auspices of the Best Evidence Encyclopedia, Bob Slavin and colleagues Cynthia Lake, Susan Davis, and Nancy Madden released an analysis of the research literature on methods for teaching students who are struggling to learn to read, “Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.” In the synthesis they report the results of their examination of nearly 100 studies that used randomized or well-matched control groups, lasted for at least 12 weeks, and employed trustworthy measures of outcomes. The results of their review, which include both effect sizes and narrative descriptions of the studies, provide valuable insight into effective methods for remediating reading problems.

Key Findings

Overall, 96 experimental-control comparisons met the inclusion criteria, of which 38 used random assignment to treatments. Effect sizes (experimental-control differences as a proportion of a standard deviation) were averaged across studies, weighting by sample size.

One-to-One Tutoring by Teachers: ES=+0.38 in 19 studies
• Reading Recovery: ES=+0.23 in 8 studies
• Other programs: ES=+0.60 in 11 studies

One-to-One Tutoring by Paraprofessionals and Volunteers: ES=+0.24 in 18 studies
• Paraprofessionals: ES=+0.38 in 11 studies
• Volunteers: ES=+0.16 in 7 studies

Small Group Tutorials: ES=+0.38 in 11 studies

Classroom Instructional Process Approaches (low achievers): ES=+0.56 in 16 studies
• Cooperative Learning: ES=+0.58 in 8 studies

Classroom Instructional Process Programs with Tutoring (Success for All, low achievers): ES=+0.55 in 9 studies

Instructional Technology (low achievers): ES=+0.09 in 14 studies

Salvin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2009). Effective programs for stuggling readings: A best-evidence synthsis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia: http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/strug/strug_read.htm

In Child Development Jo Ann Farver and colleagues reported that young children who speak Spanish can learn English early literacy skills better when they receive instruction in English. That finding’s not particularly surprising, but there’s more: There’s a comparison of English-only and “transitional” methods. Children who received instruction in English-only or Spanish with transition to English (both using the Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum) had higher pre-literacy outcomes than peers who had been randomly assigned to receive the High/Scope Curriculum.
Continue reading ‘English intervention improves Spanish-speakers’ early literacy outcomes’

The ultra-strict What Works Clearinghouse, which seemed like such a good idea 10 years ago, has issued a new statement about efficacy of another early education program, Ready, Set, Leap™, reporting that it does not have “discernible effects on oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing skills, and math.”

Here’s how the vendor’s Web site describes Ready, Set, Leap™”

This comprehensive prekindergarten curriculum provides a full year of instruction and incorporates academic, music, visual arts, and social/emotional development skills to address the needs of all students.
Continue reading ‘Ready, Set, Leap may not’

The Reading First Federal Advisory Committee has prepared a document entitled “Response to the Reading First Impact Study Interim Report” and has sent it to US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. It should be appearing in the next few days for public download on the Web page that reports the committee’s actions.

This is the report that I described in a post last May and about which I had another post 5 May.

Reminder: I am a member of the Reading First federal advisory committee. I am not, however, speaking for the committee, my fellow panelists, nor the US Department of Education here. Note, however, that the committee publicly endorsed this document in a meeting held last week.

The US What Works Clearinghouse recently released a new publication summarizing research about teaching literacy skills to adolescents.

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) invites you to look at our newest practice guide, Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices.

This guide provides five specific recommendations to improve literacy among adolescents in the upper elementary, middle, and high school grades.

Designed for teachers and other personnel who have direct contact with students, the guide presents strategies that have the strongest research support and are appropriate for use with adolescents.

Even though I’m a bit wary of the WWC analyses these days, this document appears to have been reasonably thoughtfully done. Here’s a link to download the pdf of the document.

The Best Evidence Encyclopedia made new reviews available recently.

Upper Elementary Reading Program Reviews Now Available

What reading programs have been proven to help students in grades 2-5 succeed? To find out, read this review. It summarizes the evidence on four types of programs that are designed to improve the reading achievement of students in grades 2-5, including:

Reading Curricula, including core reading textbooks such as Reading Street and Open Court, as well as supplementary texts like Read Naturally and Fluency Formula
Computer-Assisted Instruction, such as Jostens/Compass Learning and Accelerated Reader
Instructional Process Programs, such as cooperative learning and classroom management and motivation programs
Combined Curriculum and Instructional Process Programs, such as Direct Instruction, Wilson Reading, and Project Read

Obtain a copy of the full report (PDF) or the summary version.

The Institute for Literacy and Learning is offering an outstanding series of presentations over the next few months. Randy Sprick, Sharon Vaughn, Jan Hasbrouck, Rollanda O’Connor, Deb Glaser, Patricia Mathes, and Lucy Hart-Paulson will present free, on-line chats about discipline, reading, assessment in response-to-instruction models, matching interventions to students’ needs, professional development, early language and literacy, and more.
Continue reading ‘Up-coming ILL sessions’