top of page
윌슨 재단

나는 종종 Wit and Wisdom 프로그램과 짝을 이루는 Wilson의 Fundations 프로그램을 검토하고 싶었습니다. 나는 Wit and Wisdom에 낮은 점수를 주었습니다. 왜냐하면 프로그램에 대한 구체적인 연구가 없었고, 그것이 k-3를 포함하는 프로그램이었음에도 불구하고 그 기간 동안 기초적인 기술(음소 인식, 음운론, 형태론과 같은 기초적인 기술)을 포함하지 않았기 때문입니다. . 


내가 아는 한 Wilson 프로그래밍에 대한 메타 분석은 없습니다. Wilson 웹사이트, Google, Sage Pub 및 Education Source를 검색했습니다. Wison 파닉스 프로그래밍에 대한 4개의 양적 연구를 찾을 수 있었습니다. 그러나 그것들은 모두 핵심 명령어 프로그래밍이 아닌 '티어 3 프로그래밍'을 위한 것이었습니다. 하나는 2006년에 Reuter, et al, 2007년에는 Torgesen et al, 2012년에는 Wanzek et al에, 2016년에는 Fritts et al에 의해 작성되었습니다. 이 4개의 연구 중 나는 다음을 제외한 모든 연구에 접근할 수 있었습니다. 내가 구독하는 어떤 저널에도 없는 로이터 연구. 이 연구들 중에서 나는 아주 작은 메타 분석을 수행했습니다. Hedge의 g 공식을 사용하여 효과 크기를 계산했습니다. 



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