Logic of English

The Logic of English program has a phenomenal qualitative structure. It uses direct and individualized instruction to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, morphology, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, scaffolded in that order. This is exactly, how I would argue we should be teaching literacy, based on the current landscape of the scientific literature. The program also makes great use of digital learning games and flash cards, which is again, admittedly, exactly how I personally teach literacy.

I searched for studies on the topic, on Google, the company website, Education Source, and Scholar's Porta. To the best of my knowledge, that being said, there are no relevant studies of any kind -to the best of my knowledge- on the program and what we believe should work in practice and what actually works in practice does not always match. Moreover, as this program has no research specifically on it, we cannot call it evidence-based. The program is, however, research based, and I have included a graph below to illustrate the effect sizes of some of the programs most studied and essential principles. 

Final Grade: B+

The program is research based, as there are no direct studies, but most of the program principles are well evidenced, within the meta-analysis literature. 

 

Qualitative Grade: 10/10

The program uses the following essential evidence based instructional types: Individualized, direct, phonemic awareness, phonics, morphology, fluency, spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program also scaffolds the above strategies appropriately. 

 

Written by Nathaniel Hansford

Last Edited 2022-02-03

References:

 

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

 

 

 

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. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s11145-017-9749-x

 

 

 

Ehri, Linnea & Nunes, Simone & Willows, Dale & Schuster, Barbara & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Zohreh & Shanahan, Timothy. (2001). Phonemic Awareness Instruction Helps Children Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading Panel's Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly. 36. 250-287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2. 

 

 

 

 

 

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/10.1080/1934574080 2539200

 

 

 

J, Hattie. (2022). Meta-X. Visible Learning. Retrieved from <https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/influences>. 

 

 

 

N, Hansford. (2021). Morphology: A Secondary Meta-Analysis. Pedagog Non Grata. Retrieved from <https://www.pedagogynongrata.com/morphology>. 

 

 

 

 

 

Graham, Steve, and Michael Hebert. Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve. Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010. Print.

 

 

 

Logic of English. (2022). The Five Essential Skills of Reading. Retrieved from <https://reading.logicofenglish.com/>.