Older Students | Teaching By Science

How do we Support Struggling Readers in Grades 4 and Up?

Research on how to help struggling readers in Grades 4–12 is far thinner than the extensive evidence base we have for early literacy. Most intervention research focuses on Grade 3 and below and for good reason. Reviews by Torgesen (2009) and Mathes & Denton show that the rare studies where 95% of students reached grade level were conducted with first graders. Likewise, Hall et al. (2023) found that interventions in Grade 1 were roughly twice as effective as those delivered in Grade 3. In other words, earlier intervention works better.

Still, teachers have an ethical obligation to support every struggling reader, regardless of age. And from years of anecdotal experience, I can say that it is possible to make meaningful gains with older students using targeted Tier 2 instruction. Although the research base is smaller, several meta-analyses do give us useful guidance.

To help visualize these findings, I created the interactive graph below. It ranks instructional methods and intervention factors by mean effect size. The color coding reflects study rigor: red for studies without control groups or peer review, green for studies requiring control groups, and blue for the most rigorous sets with additional methodological criteria. Clicking on each bar provides more detailed information and full citations.

This graph isn’t meant to be exhaustive, rather, it’s an exploratory overview of the studies I’ve examined for this website, my books, and my own research work (supplemented by AI-assisted searches). In total, it includes results from 13 meta-analyses covering hundreds of individual studies.

One important caveat: a higher effect size does not mean a strategy should always be used, and a lower effect size doesn’t mean a strategy should never be used. Generally speaking, when a high-quality meta-analysis reports effects above 0.40, we can be reasonably confident the approach has solid evidence behind it. Conversely, smaller effects can indicate that the method may still be valuable, but only in certain contexts.

For example, the graph includes effect sizes for intervention duration. While 15 hours of intervention is far more impactful than 5 hours, 20 hours shows a slightly smaller effect than 15. This does not mean longer interventions are useless. It simply means most students gain most of the benefit within the first 15 hours, though some students will absolutely require more.

Personally, my biggest takeaways from this data are that older struggling readers still benefit from explicit instruction in foundational skills—phonemic awareness, phonics, morphology, and fluency. There is also meaningful, if smaller, evidence that cognitive strategy instruction (such as main ideas and summarizing) can support comprehension for students in the upper grades.

In the past, I’ve mostly limited myself to summarizing research for teachers, but I know how difficult it can be to translate effect sizes into actual classroom practice. I’ve been teaching Grades 6–8 for eight years, and I wanted to share how I personally apply these findings with my own students.

Small Groups Are Not for Core Instruction

One of the biggest missteps of the balanced literacy era, in my opinion, was the assumption that all students need small-group literacy instruction. In my experience, most students do not require small groups to be successful. Instead, there is usually a much smaller group of students who need short-term, targeted, small-group or one-on-one intervention.

Getting an entire class to grade level requires triage, and your most limited resource is time. When you reserve intensive instructional time for the students who truly need it, you can provide more focused intervention and move more students to benchmark. As the year progresses and more students reach grade level, your intervention group naturally becomes smaller and more manageable.

I’m often asked when to pull students for small groups. There’s no single correct answer, but personally, I avoid doing intervention during the literacy block. If a student is struggling with reading, I want them to receive more total literacy instruction, not replace part of their core instruction with intervention.

The reality is this: you cannot get all students to grade level without increasing instructional support for students who are below benchmark. I sometimes see claims online that “with the right teaching methods,” whole-class instruction alone can bring every student to standard. After years of reading education research, I have never found a single study that supports that idea.

Identifying Students Who Need Support:

Once we accept that some students will require small-group or one-to-one intervention to reach grade level, the next question is obvious: How do we reliably identify who needs that extra support? As many readers of this blog already know, traditional benchmark assessments are not particularly accurate or valid indicators of reading difficulty (Burns et al., 2018). A far more dependable approach is to use a norm-referenced fluency measure such as DIBELS, Acadience, or easyCBM.

Personally, I use DIBELS because it’s fast, free, and easy to administer. You give a student one minute to read a passage, then score the number of words read correctly and the number of errors. DIBELS reports two fluency metrics:

WRC (Words Read Correct) – the total number of correct words read in one minute

Accuracy (ACC) = (Words Correct ÷ (Words Correct + Errors)) × 100

I primarily use WRC because it is more stable and more predictive of overall reading proficiency. Once you have the raw scores, you simply consult the norm chart to convert them to percentiles. The left-hand column shows the raw score; use a ruler to trace across to the grade-appropriate passage to find the percentile. Below is an example using Grade 8 norms.

Once you have the raw scores, you can use the norm chart to convert them into percentiles. The left-hand column of the chart lists the raw score; you then follow the row across to the appropriate grade-level passage to locate the percentile. Below is an example using Grade 8 norms:

If a student scored 85 WRC, they would fall at the 16th percentile on the first passage, 15th on the second, and 10th on the third.
If a student had 85% accuracy, the percentiles would be significantly lower—4th, 3rd, and 2nd, because accuracy compresses scores and tends to penalize errors more sharply than WRC.

Once you have the percentiles, the next step is choosing an intervention benchmark. Personally, I use the 30th percentile, which is supported in the literature (Torgesen, 2009) and corresponds to roughly one standard deviation below the mean. It’s a logical and conservative threshold for identifying students who are below grade level. That said, some educators prefer cut points as low as the 18th percentile. The best choice depends on context: if most students are performing well, the 30th percentile makes sense; if many are well below grade level, using the 18th percentile may be more actionable.

Deficit vs Holistic Instruction

Historically, there has been an ongoing debate in the academic literature between a deficit model of intervention and a holistic model. The holistic model, which was especially popular during the Balanced Literacy era, assumes that reading needs are complex and multi-faceted (Allington, 2012). Under this approach, teachers often provide a broad, mixed intervention—perhaps 5 minutes on decoding, 5 minutes on phonemic awareness, 10 minutes on fluency, and 5 minutes on comprehension, regardless of a student’s specific needs. Advocates of the holistic model sometimes argue that focusing on a student’s weaknesses is demoralizing, and a few researchers have even suggested that strengthening a student’s existing skills can compensate for their deficits without directly addressing them (Van Geene, 2014).

In contrast, proponents of a deficit model argue that identifying and directly targeting a student’s specific literacy weaknesses leads to more efficient and meaningful progress (Burns & Hall, 2018). Anecdotally, I find this model far more practical for upper-grade teachers, especially since full pull-out intervention is relatively rare in middle school settings. Fortunately, the research is quite clear. A meta-analysis by Matt Burns and Colby Hall (2018) found that deficit-based interventions were, on average, twice as effective as holistic interventions.

Identifying Student Deficits

Once you’ve identified which students need additional support, the next step is determining what they need. This usually requires more than one assessment. In my experience, most older struggling readers have at least some difficulty with phonics—though not all do—so I typically assess phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling to get a clearer picture.

From there, I use a simple decision-making process:

Weak phonemic awareness → start with phonemic awareness
Decent phonemic awareness but weak decoding → focus on decoding
Strong decoding but weak spelling → target morphology and fluency
Strong spelling but weak fluency → emphasize fluency and comprehension

This doesn’t mean students with multiple weaknesses won’t also benefit from fluency or comprehension instruction. They will—and they should receive that in regular classroom literacy lessons. My intervention time, however, is reserved for targeted instruction based on the student’s most significant area of need.

What Assessments Should I Use?

This is actually the most difficult question to answer in my opinion, because it is highly dependent on your program and approach. There are lots of great reading interventions out there, many of which are free or are commercially available and have been reviewed for our site. In my opinion the best assessments will connect with lessons in your program. For example, if you are going to use UFLI, you will want to use the UFLI assessments to see which lesson you should start on. It’s unlikely your student would need to start at the very beginning. Some programs will allow you to customize your lessons and approach down to the individual letter sounds taught, like our Reading by Science program, or my newest program SAGE Online. Whereas other programs are more scripted and thus less specific to your student’s individualized needs. While I personally like to use an approach that is highly individualized, there is surprisingly little research on what type of approach works better. That said, DIBELS includes free highly tested and used phonics and phonemic awareness screeners. Alternatively, our teacher by teacher page, also includes free screeners that connect to the scope and sequence for both Reading by Science and SAGE Online. These screeners are listed below:

Phonemic Awareness
Decoding
Spelling

Again what really matters here, is that you are picking assessments that will help you identify the deficits of your student and target instruction to those needs.

Teaching Phonemic Awareness

Historically, phonemic awareness instruction has relied heavily on oral manipulation and deletion drills. However, research has consistently shown these to be among the least effective approaches (NRP, 2000; Rehfeld, 2022; Erbeli, 2024). Instead, the strongest evidence supports teaching phonemic awareness through blending and segmenting.

If you want students to segment a word, write the word, say it aloud and have them identify each sound. For example: ghost → gh / o / s / t.
If you want students to blend, present the segmented sounds and ask them to identify the whole word: gh / o / s / t → ghost.

Blending is essentially a reading (decoding) activity, while segmenting is essentially a spelling (encoding) activity. Anecdotally, I have found blending to be less useful for older struggling readers. Many have memorized a large number of words and will often identify the word from memory rather than use blending to decode it. Segmenting, on the other hand, is harder to guess and tends to produce more meaningful learning.

I rarely teach phonemic awareness in isolation to older students, save for my students with the most profound difficulties. When I do teach phonemic awareness to older students it’s typically for a short period of time (less than 3 hours of total instruction.) If you are looking for segmenting drills appropriate for your most struggling readers, check out the free PA lessons in the Reading by Science program.

That said, I do have a free word study program, based on segmenting difficult multi-syllabic words. I usually use this whole-class for my students in September and October, to help improve general spelling and decoding. This program’s scope and sequence is organized according to speech to print principles. You can find this for free here: LINK

Teaching Phonics
Research shows that phonics is best taught systematically and explicitly. That means having a scope and sequence for the letter sound correlations that you will teach and explicitly teaching students the connection. Personally, I try to get students to integrate spelling and phonics together. I don’t think it makes sense to teach phonics as an oral activity. Research by Graham & Herbert (2011) has shown that spelling focused instruction can be twice as impactful as phonics instruction taught in isolation. Most systematic phonics programs include decodables. While the evidence on decodables is less robust, theoretically the principle of giving students controlled decoding practices is sound (Pugh, Kearnes & Herbert, 2023).

For example, in a phonics lesson I might write the letters <gh> and ask student’s what sound those make. I would hope they would say /f/ at the end of a word and /g/ at the beginning of a word. If they don’t we would have a conversation about that and I would show example words that use the spelling pattern. I would then have the student copy the example words into their phonics notebook. Next we would read a decodable text with the target sounds.

Personally, I have found that older students with reading difficulties often benefit the most from phonics instruction. However, I find that you can use a much faster scope and sequence. Older students typically don’t have zero decoding knowledge, instead they typically have fragmented decoding knowledge, where they will know some letter sound correlations and not others. This is why I would recommend avoiding core instruction programs aimed at younger students, when conducting intervention for older struggling readers. Typically core instruction phonics programs will have very slow scope and sequences. This pacing is appropriate for 5-year-olds learning from scratch, but inefficient for a 10- or 12-year-old with partial knowledge. For these reasons, I would recommend picking a phonics program that is specific to older struggling readers or that allows you to customize the scope and sequence to your students needs.

In my experience, older struggling readers often make rapid progress with phonics alone. I can’t count the number of times that I have given a month of phonics instruction to an older struggling reader, only to see them move up 10 percentile points on DIBELS. I would guess that in these instances, the student's deficit is not profound and just achieving a higher level of decoding, allows the student to reach a state of “statistical learning”. Which is a fancy way of saying the student can now independently decode and learn words for themself, without the support of a teacher.

One phonics tool I have had a ton of luck with for my older struggling readers is the flashcard phonics app that I made for SAGE Online. This app has 16 units. Each unit contains 5 levels of difficulty. For level 1, students must identify a letter sound correspondence, based on words that have the target sound, pictures of words that use the target sound, and a voice reading words associated with the target sound. Level 2, only shows words that use the target sound. Level 3, has no visual clues and a voice reads the words associated with the sound. Level 4 has students practice reading words associated with the sound. Level 5 has a decodable text, which the computer reads to the student and then asks the student to read back. I am giving away a free basic version of the app, with this article. If you want to try it with your students, click the LINK and use the passcode: 1234567

If you want to try the full version, it has an “AI” mode, in which the app only gives students letter sound correlations that they have previously struggled with. It also has corresponding apps that will make phonics and segmenting workbooks specific to the sounds they struggle with. You can check it out at LINK. Be sure to use the free trial code: free trial

If you would like free phonics workbooks that also align with the above discussed flashcard app, check out this LINK and use the passcode: 54321. This app includes 16 units of phonics workbooks, including over 400 pages of worksheets. Each lesson contains 6 mini lessons: Identify the sound, copy the example words, segment the words, fill in the blank, word search, and decodable story. This app is based on a similar app on SAGE Online. The full version will automatically generate custom workbooks for students, based on their identified decoding struggles. That said, as the activities in this workbook are more primary, they are more appropriate for students with more profound difficulties. If your students' needs are less profound, this segmenting workbook generator also aligns with the flashcards app scope and sequence, but uses more challenging words. I will note that all three apps are meant for PC only and will not work as well on mobile.

Teaching Morphology:
There are many meta-analyses on morphology instruction showing that it can support reading and spelling development (Reed, 2008; Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013; Galuschka, 2020; Colenbrander, 2024). Annecodally, I find that morphology instruction often focuses on deep etymological instruction. Logically deep etmological instruction would theoretically support comprehension. However, this idea is not supported in the body of research. Indeed virtually all of the above meta-analyses found negligible effects on reading comprehension. Conversely, these studies showed very robust effects on spelling and reading outcomes.

Personally, I find this deeply logical. The English spelling system is primarily defined by morphology, not phonology, hence there are often multiple spelling patterns for the same sound (Bowers & Kirby, 2010). However, the meaning of morphemes is often highly dependent on context, and historically inconsistent. For example the base <over> can be added to words to refer to location, substitution, extension, repetition, and completion. Expecting students to explicitly memorize all of these different meanings would be cognitively burdensome.

Similarly, morphological instruction often focuses on roots and bases. However, there are hundreds of thousands of roots and bases in the English language. So teaching students all roots and bases is practically impossible. Conversely, there are only a few hundred commonly used suffixes. Most challenging spelling patterns are related to the addition of suffixes to roots and bases (especially roots). I therefore think logically it makes the most sense to focus morphology instruction on teaching students how the addition of suffixes morphs the spelling of roots and bases.

Truthfully, I tend to treat morphology as a form of analytic phonics (perhaps an unpopular idea). But for the reasons outlined above, I think it is the most practical way to teach morphology. In my view, the goal of morphology instruction is to bring logic and predictability to the English spelling system. If phonics is to reading, morphology is to spelling. Therefore, I believe it is essential that students write and spell during every morphology lesson. Morphology should not be taught as an oral-only exercise.

Typically, I include 3 main types of drills in my morphology lessons:
1. Identify the morphemes in a word. IE: <Destruction> = De struct ion

2. Add the suffix or prefix to a base. IE: <patron> + <ize> = patronize

3. Add the suffix or prefix to a root. IE: <bio> + <ogy> = biology

If you’re looking for free morphology resources, the Reading by Science program includes a scope and sequence for instruction and a series of free units. I also host a series of free morphology resources and workbooks on my Free SOR Page. The workbooks are aligned with the SAGE Online morphology apps.

Teaching Reading Fluency:

Personally, I use repeated reading to teach fluency. There are a large number of meta-analyses showing that repeated reading is effective at improving fluency outcomes (NRP, 2000; Therrien, 2003; Lee & colleagues, 2017). In a repeated reading a teacher first reads a text to a student and then the student reads the text back to the teacher. Sometimes this is for a set number of repetitions, sometimes it’s until the student can read with prosody (smoothness or ease). Research by Lee and colleagues (2017) shows that reading to prosody is more effective than using a set number of repetitions.

Repeated reading can be a tough pitch. It’s not exciting and there have been a few popular scholars over the years to criticize it. That said, I can think of no other fluency intervention with as robus scientific evidence. Moreover, since I have been using it in my own classroom now for 5 years and have noticed a big improvement in fluency scores since doing so. Truthfully, I do repeated reading every day, as part of my whole-class instruction and believe overall, it has helped to improve my DIBELS scores more than anything else. Repeated reading might be boring, but it works. Personally, I use the following routine for Repeated Reading:

1. Begin With Teacher Modelling (“I Do”)

Reciprocal teaching always begins with the teacher modelling the process out loud. The teacher shows students how to:

Preview the text and make a reasonable prediction about what it will be about.
Stop when something is confusing and clarify a word, phrase, or idea.
Ask questions during reading—why something is happening, what might happen next, how ideas connect.
Summarize a small section in one or two sentences.

This modelling is essential. Most struggling readers have never been shown what it sounds like for an expert reader to monitor comprehension.

2. Move Into Guided Practice (“We Do”)

After modelling, the teacher and students read a short section of text together, usually a paragraph or two. The teacher then prompts the group to work through the four steps:

Prediction:
“Based on the title/first sentence/illustration, what do you think this will be about?”
Clarification:
“Was there anything in this section we didn’t understand? Any confusing words?”
Questioning:
“What questions should we ask about this part? What might the author want us to notice?”
Summarizing:
“How would we say this section in one or two sentences?”

The teacher still leads the discussion, but students begin taking more ownership.

3. Small-Group Practice (“You Do Together”)

Once the class understands the routine, students work in small groups (2–4 students).
Each student takes a turn acting as the discussion leader for one of the four roles:

The Predictor
The Clarifier
The Questioner
The Summarizer

The key is that all students participate, but responsibility rotates. Struggling students often benefit from sentence starters or role cards (e.g., “I predict that…”, “A word I need to clarify is…”).

During this stage, the teacher circulates, listens, provides prompts, and supports accuracy.

4. Independent Internalization (“You Do Alone”)

Over time, usually several weeks, students begin internalizing the four processes and can apply them independently during reading.
The goal is not for students to “check off the steps,” but to:

monitor their own understanding
notice confusion
slow down
ask meaningful questions
identify main ideas automatically

In other words, reciprocal teaching helps students learn how to think while reading.

Why Reciprocal Teaching Works

Reciprocal teaching is effective because it simultaneously reinforces the three things struggling readers rarely do on their own:

Metacognition: noticing when meaning breaks down.
Active reading: interacting with the text rather than passively decoding it.
Coherent summarization: identifying main ideas rather than isolated details.

It is not a “content-heavy” program. It is a routine, simple, repeatable, and easily integrated into any text or subject area.

How Much Time Should It Take?

Reciprocal teaching does not require long lessons. In most classrooms it can be done in:

10–15 minutes for short passages
OR embedded into content-area reading (science, history, etc.)

Because time is limited and decoding/fluency must remain the priority, reciprocal teaching is a strong choice if you have already succeeded in getting all students to benchmark for reading fluency.

Final Thoughts

Helping older struggling readers is challenging work, and the research isn’t nearly as deep as it is for early literacy. My goal here wasn’t to hand out a strict, prescriptive program, every class and every student is different. Instead, I wanted to share what the strongest evidence points toward and what has consistently worked for me in real classrooms.

Across the studies and in my day-to-day teaching the same themes keep showing up: older students often make meaningful progress with explicit instruction in phonics, morphology, and spelling; targeted fluency work through repeated reading; and clear, structured comprehension routines like reciprocal teaching. None of these are silver bullets, but together they give teachers a solid, practical starting point.

If you want ready-to-use resources, assessments, and intervention tools that align with the research discussed here, feel free to explore my new site: www.sageonlineacademy.ca/landing. This site individualizes reading instruction to student needs, self-marks all student work and provides additional recommendations to teachers and parents, for next steps.

And if you’d like a deeper dive into the science behind effective reading and writing instruction, you can preorder my upcoming book here:
https://www.solutiontree.com/scientific-principles-of-reading-and-writing-instruction.html

At the end of the day, we do the best we can with the time, tools, and research we have. My hope is that this article helps make the path forward a little clearer and gives you a few approaches you can put to work right away.

Written by Nathaniel Hansford

Last Edited 2025/11/19

Have Questions? Reach out to evidenced.based.teaching@gmail.com

Found this article helpful? Consider supporting us on patreon: patreon.com/u70587114

References:

Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers.

The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520–530.

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353

Burns, M. K., Pulles, S. M., Maki, K. E., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Helman, L., McComas, J., & Preast, J. (2015). Accuracy of student performance while reading leveled books rated at their instructional level by a reading inventory. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.003

Colenbrander, D., von Hagen, A., Kohnen, S., & Castles, A. (2024). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy outcomes for children in English-speaking countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09953-3

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200

Erbeli, F., Rice, M., Xu, Y., Bishop, M. E., & Goodrich, J. M. (2024). A meta-analysis on the optimal cumulative dosage of early phonemic awareness instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2309386

Filderman, M. J., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050860

Galloway, A. (2003). Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive strategy instruction: Evaluating the evidence for the effectiveness of the reciprocal teaching procedure.

Galuschka, K., Görgen, R., Kalmar, J., Haberstroh, S., Schmalz, X., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794

Gillespie Rouse, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238

Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566

Hansford, N., Dueker, S., Garforth, K., Grande, J. D., King, J., & McGlynn, S. (2024). Structured literacy compared to balanced literacy: A quantitative analysis of research on balanced literacy and structured literacy. Manuscript accepted for publication in Discover Education. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K7Y4C

Hansford, N., Garforth, K., McGlynn, S., & King, J. (2024). Reading comprehension: A meta-analysis comparing standardized and non-standardized assessment results. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZRYCK

Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194

Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5

National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

Onesimus, L., Harun, H., & Dasari, D. (2025). Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of reciprocal teaching model on mathematics learning outcomes. Mathline: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.31943/mathline.v10i1.688

Pugh, A., Kearns, D. M., & Hiebert, E. H. (2023). Text types and their relation to efficacy in beginning reading interventions. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(3), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.513

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K–12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261.x

Rehfeld, D. M., Kirkpatrick, M., O'Guinn, N., & Renbarger, R. (2022). A meta-analysis of phonemic awareness instruction provided to children suspected of having a reading disability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(4), 1177–1201. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00160

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170585

Scammacca Lewis, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801

Van Geene, M. (2014). A strength-based reading intervention method for individuals with severe autism (Master’s thesis). Laurentian University.

https://laurentian.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/b4c4664c-5645-4d91-b265-7394993f6420/content