Language Programs Ranked by ELL Outcomes

One criticism I often see of meta-analysis is that different studies are measuring different outcomes. For example one reading program study might measure letter ID and phonemic awareness, whereas another might measure word ID and comprehension. Even more problematic, some studies list their impact without listing their measurement criteria. Moreover, the demographics of different studies are often very different, and different age demographics lead to different results. Earlier this year I put out a large, but non-peer reviewed meta-analysis of language programs. After doing so, I have often gotten the question, what is the best program for my specific situation. In order to address this question, and to help correct for the above listed (valid) criticism of meta-analysis, I have decided to put a small series of sub-analyses that break down my original results according to more specific outcomes, and rank programs based on their effect sizes, according to these outcomes. 

 

This analysis provides more specific outcomes for people to look at. However, it also lowers the total sample size and statistical power of the analysis. This is especially true, as most studies only look at a small number of specific outcomes, with this in mind, readers should note that most language programs will be excluded from most sub-analyses, due to a lack of research. If you would like to learn more about the methodology behind this analysis, you can find the original sourced article here: https://www.teachingbyscience.com/a-meta-analysis-of-language-programs 

 

On this page, you can find language programs ranked by effect size for ELL outcomes. Please note that this page will be updated over time, as I add new research.

Written by Nathaniel Hansford

Last Edited 2022-05-28

References:

Jolly Phonics:

Nasrawi, A., & Al-Jamal, D. (2017). The Effect of Using Jolly Phonics on Jordanian First Grade Pupils’ Reading. International Online Journal of Education & Teaching, 4(2), 106–119.

 

Callinan, C., & van der Zee, E. (2010). A comparative study of two methods of synthetic phonics instruction for learning how to read: Jolly Phonics and THRASS. Psychology of Education Review, 34(1), 21–31.

 

M, Stuart. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Psychology. Retrieved from <https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Research/Getting%20Ready%20for%20Reading.pdf>. 

 

C, Crane, Et, Al. (1999). Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. University of York. Retrieved from <https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Research/BowyerCrane%20etal2007proof.pdf>. 

 

L, Farokhbakht. The Effect of Using Multisensory-based Phonics in Teaching Literacy on EFL Young Female/Male Learners' Early Reading Motivation. University of Isfahan. Retrieved from <https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Research/The%20Effect%20of%20Using%20Multisensory-based%20Phonics%20in%20Teaching%20Literacy%20on%20EFL%20Young%20FemaleMale%20Learners'%20Early%20Reading%20Motivation.pdf>. 

 

N, Katechaiyo, et al. EFFECTS OF JOLLY PHONICS INSTRUCTION FOR PUPIL BOOK 1 ON REDING ABILITY OF THAI EFL YOUNG LEARNERS. Retrieved from <https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Research/Revealing%20the%20secrets%20of%20remarkable%20improvement%20of%20Thai%20EFL%20young%20learners_Aug.2021.pdf>. 

 

Republic of Gambia. (2009).  IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF INTERVENTIONS ON EARLY GRADE READING ABILITY (EGRA) IN SCHOOLS. Retrieved from <https://www.jollylearning.co.uk/evidence/research/>. 

 

Government of Nigeria. (2014). REPORT ON THE MONITORING EXERCISE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOLLY PHONICS APPROACH IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA. Retrieved from <https://s3.amazonaws.com/jolly2/Research/Jolly+Phonics+in+FCT.pdf>. 

 

N, Katechaiyo, Et al. EFFECTS OF JOLLY PHONICS INSTRUCTION FOR PUPIL BOOK 1 ON READING ABILITY OF THAI EFL YOUNG LEARNERS. Retrieved from <https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Research/Revealing%20the%20secrets%20of%20remarkable%20improvement%20of%20Thai%20EFL%20young%20learners_Aug.2021.pdf>. 

 

SIPPS:

SIPPS SIPPS. (2002). Nappe California Case Study. Retrieved from <https://public.cdn.ccclearningportal.org/program/resources/field-team/sipps-evidence-base-and-impact.pdf>. 

 

 

J, Thomas. (2004). Field-Test Evaluation Of The Child Development Project. PhD Thesis. Retrieved from <https://www.collaborativeclassroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Napa-Field-Test-Eval.pdf>. 


 

SIPPS. (2022). SIPPS: Accelerative Foundational Skills Instruction. Retrieved from <https://www.collaborativeclassroom.org/programs/sipps/>. 

 

Take Flight:

Ring, J., Avrit, K., Black, J., Ring, J. J., Avrit, K. J., & Black, J. L. (2017). Take Flight: the evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 383–400. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s11881-017-0151-9

 

Words Their Way:

Eddy, R. M., Ruitman, T., Hankel, N., Matelski, M. H. & Schmalstig, M. (2011). Pearson Words Their Way: Word Study in Action Intervention Efficacy Study Final Report