Program Description:

Fountas and Pinnell offers both an intervention program called Leveled Literacy Instruction and a core instruction program called Fountas & Pinnell Classroom. The program is based on the principles of balanced literacy instruction and is possibly the most popular reading program in the world. This program focuses on the use of fluency instruction via leveled texts, cueing, and guided reading. Fountas and Pinnell instruction does include some phonics, but it is typically limited and embedded within their fluency instruction. Leveled Literacy Instruction was inspired by Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery program. Recently, Fountas and Pinnell has faced intense scrutiny for its efficacy. However, much of the criticism and support of Fountas and Pinnell has been qualitative in nature. For example, the Fountas and Pinnell website, has a bibliography of studies on LLI and cites that this research has been positive, as proof of their efficacy. However, followers of this blog know that we believe efficacy (in education) can only be determined via quantitative measures and meta-analysis and the Fountas and Pinnell website does not list any quantitative information, in support of their programs efficacy.

Method:

We looked for a meta-analysis of the topic; however, we could not find any current meta-analysis of the topic, despite the fact that Fountas and Pinnell’s program is possibly the most widely used English Language program in the world and despite the fact that it has faced intense scrutiny. Evidence for ESSA has evaluated LLI; however, they only looked at 2 studies and found a mean effect size of .13, which is statistically negligible. For the purposes of this blog, we reviewed studies of Fountas and Pinnell, to evaluate the efficacy of the program. 

In order to conduct this analysis, a systematic search was conducted for Fountas & Pinnell studies on the company website, on google, Education Source, and Sage Journal. We searched the term “Fountas and Pinnell” in the academic data-bases to find studies. In Google we searched the term “Fountas and Pinnel Research.” All studies that did not have a control group and/or enough statistical detail to calculate an effect size were excluded. In total our search turned up 355 papers. However, the majority of papers were not relevant. Most often papers were excluded for either not being experimental or for duplication. At the end of our initial search were located 7 relevant studies that were either experimental or quasi-experimental. Next, effect sizes were calculated using the Cohen's d formula. All effect sizes were first calculated by the primary author and then independently re-calculated by either the second or third author. 

Results:

The systematic search found 7 relevant studies on the topic of LLI instruction. However, no studies were found on Fountas and Pinnell Core instruction. 5 Studies were conducted by the Center for Research Policy in Education. 2 Studies were conducted by independent authors. **Update** After this original analysis and article was published, Pedagogy Non Grata helped to conduct two small quasi-experimental studies that were relevant to his topic. Both studies looked at grade 1 classes in which the control group and treatment groups each received instruction based on F and P materials. However, the treatment group also received additional phonics instruction, via the use of mnemonics. These studies had three serious limitations: they have not been peer-reviewed, they were conducted retroactively (which runs the risk of bias), and they were sponsored studies (which also runs the risk of bias). However, we believe these studies are important to consider for two reasons:

1. To the best of our knowledge these studies are the only experimental studies ever conducted which compared Fountas and Pinnell materials to a comparison group that received additional phonics. 

2. To the best of our knowledge these studies are the only experimental studies ever conducted which examined Fountas and Pinnel core instruction. 

In order to limit the potential bias for these studies, we had all parties sign strict ethics agreements that stated all data had to be shared in good faith, all results had to be published, and that all parties must act in the best interest of scientific accuracy. We also had an outside organization independently review our research (LXD research). 

Table 1: Studies Included