top of page
fundaciones wilson

Quería revisar el programa Fundamentos de Wilson, ya que a menudo se combina con el programa Wit and Wisdom. Le di a Wit and Wisdom una calificación baja porque no tenía una investigación específica del programa y porque, a pesar de ser un programa que incluía k-3, no incluía habilidades fundamentales durante ese período de tiempo (las habilidades fundamentales son la conciencia fonológica, la fonología y la morfología). . 


Que yo sepa, no hay metanálisis sobre la programación de Wilson. Busqué en el sitio web de Wilson, Google, Sage Pub y Education Source. Pude encontrar, 4 estudios cuantitativos realizados sobre la programación fonética de Wison; sin embargo, todos eran para su programación de nivel tres y no para su programación de instrucción básica. Uno de Reuter, Et al, en 2006, uno de Torgesen, Et al, en 2007, uno de Wanzek Et al, en 2012, y uno de Fritts Et al, en 2016. De estos 4 estudios tuve acceso a todos excepto el estudio de Reuter, que no está en ninguna de las revistas a las que estoy suscrito. De estos estudios, realicé un metanálisis muy pequeño. Calculé los tamaños del efecto usando la fórmula g de Hedge. 



Wilson Study Outcomes.png

The unweighted mean effect size for Wilson was .26 [-.05, .57]. The weighted mean effect size was .31 [-.51, 1.13]. These synthesized results are low and suggest the efficacy of Wilson, might be low. That said, these studies are not all of equal quality. According to ESSA guidelines, Oglesbee 2014 and Wanzek would be tier 3, Fritts 2016 would be tier 2, and Torgesen 2007 would be tier 1. The Torgersen 2007 study is by far the highest quality study and it showed a mean effect size of .36, which according to Cohen’s guide is low, but tier 1 studies normally show much lower results. For a tier 1 study the Torgesen 2007 results are moderately impressive. 


While the mean results are low, it should be noted that most effect sizes were moderate to high, with the exception of distal measures, fluency, and nonsense word outcomes. If we remove distal measures, fluency and nonsense word outcomes, the mean effect size jumps to .43, which is right around the average for phonics instruction. This might suggest that Wilson lacks sufficient fluency instruction and could be substantially improved by substituting additional fluency instruction. 


It should be noted that while the mean results for Wilson were low, the principles behind Wilson instruction are sound. Indeed there are multiple meta-analyses showing that comprehensive phonics instruction shows impressive results, including the 2001 NRP meta-analysis. 


Final Grade: B

The program principles are well rooted in research. A mean weighted effect size of .31 was found. 


Qualitative Grade: 9/10

The Wilson program includes the following evidence-based forms of instruction: Explicit, individualized, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and spelling. 


Disclaimer: Please note that this review is not peer reviewed content. These reviews are independently conducted. Pedagogy Non Grata, does not take profit from conducting any program review found on this website.  

Written by:

Nathaniel Hansford: teacher and lead writer for Pedagogy Non Grata

Joshua King: teacher

Last Edited 2023-01-16



Elleman, A.M., Lindo, E.J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D.L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44. 2539200


Ehri, Linnea C., et al. “Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 71, no. 3, 2001, pp. 393–447.


Feng, L., Lindner, A., Ji, X. R., & Malatesha Joshi, R. (2019). The roles of handwriting and keyboarding in writing: a meta-analytic review. Reading & Writing, 32(1), 33–63.



GROWTH OF FIRST GRADE STUDENTS. Masters Thesis. College of Bowling Green

State University. Retrieved from <>. "

Fritts, J. L. (2016). Direct instruction and Orton-Gillingham reading methodologies:

Effectiveness of increasing reading achievement of elementary school students with learning

disabilities (Publication No. 10168236) [Master’s thesis, Northeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.


Reuter, H. B. (2006). Phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with disabilities:

A scripted multisensory intervention (Publication No. 3251867) [Master’s thesis,University of Oregon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.


Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., Stancavage,

F., Durno, D., Javorsky, R., & Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I: Final

report. Volume II. Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading

interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Wanzek, J., & Roberts, G. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases

for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 90–101.

bottom of page