A Road Map to Evidence Based Instruction in Reading and Writing Education: A Secondary Meta-analysis on the Science of Reading & Writing Instruction

Written by Nathaniel Hansford, Kathryn Garforth, and Joshua King. Contributed to by Rachel Schechter & Brandi Noll 

Last Edited: 2022-09-14

 

Abstract:

The authors of this paper conducted a secondary meta-analysis on education factors related to the science of reading and writing instruction. This analysis examined the findings of 31 other meta-analyses and secondary meta-analyses and synthesized these effects into one graph. Next these results were examined, as according to how they varied according to different grade ranges. Based on the findings of this research and the collective teaching experiences of the authors, curriculum recommendations were made for each grade. This paper showed that instructional practices showed dramatically different effects across age ranges. Within the younger grades more foundational instructional practices showed higher impacts, such as phonics, phonemic awareness, and morphology. Whereas in older grades comprehension and fluency instruction typically showed greater impacts. With this finding in mind the authors would recommend that while early instruction should not be limited to foundational instruction that it should focus on it. Conversely, they would recommend that core instruction for older students should focus less on foundational skills and more on comprehension/fluency.

 

Introduction:
Teaching by Science has focused on breaking down the effectiveness of different types of instructional strategies, based on meta-analyses of the current body of research. Education research is incredibly complex because there is a lot of variability in education studies results. Unlike within the hard sciences where experimental studies are completed in controlled lab conditions, the vast majority of education research is conducted in classrooms, not labs. While some intervention research is conducted in controlled settings, this has limited applicability to the classroom. Due to this applicability problem, it is essential for education researchers to look at instructional practices within an actual classroom setting. This is why, more typically researchers supplement instruction, on top of regular class instruction, where dozens of instructional strategies may be used in a term. In most cases, results are measured based on an increase in usage of a specific pedagogy. This dilutes the scientific validity of individual studies in education, which is why looking at multiple studies using a systematic approach (meta-analysis) is important. 

 

This article presents the reader with a more macro perspective of current research. A secondary meta-analysis was conducted by ranking available data according to a statistical metric called an effect size, a number that quantifies the impact of a program or strategy. This means it is a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. This analysis calculated the mean of multiple factors, via other meta-analyses as opposed to other individual studies. Dr. John Hattie, a statistician and education writer, popularized this methodology in 2008 with his first book Visible Learning, he has since updated his research on an annual basis.  

 

By conducting a secondary meta-analysis of the topic, we hoped to help the reader contextualize their overall importance specifically in literacy instruction. While the authors of this paper have enormous respect for John Hattie and his research, one fair criticism of his work has been that it looks at factors overall and does not break them down by grade or subject. This is important because pedagogical factors often show different levels of efficacy in different grade ranges. For example, phonics has only been shown to be effective for younger students. Therefore, it does not make sense to look at a high overall effect size for phonics and use that as a justification to teach phonics in grade 10. With this in mind, not only have we conducted a secondary meta-analysis for the overall impact of literacy instruction factors, but we have also broken down the results by grade. Looking at the results in this manner means the data provides classroom teachers with the opportunity to refer to one source for best practices at their grade(s) level.
 

While a factor's value should not be interpreted solely on its effect size. The metric is a less subjective and more consistent measure for determining which teaching interventions are the most likely to be successful. For example, small differences in effect size, like the 0.02 point difference between Read-Aloud and Answering Questions, provides little distinction between the effectiveness of each program.  While large differences, like the 1.08 point difference between Response to Intervention and ear reading, are easily large enough to indicate which strategy is likely to have the greater impact on classroom learning. By viewing the extant literature and available statistics in this light, it is possible to empower teachers to make more informed decisions about how best to optimize the use of their available time and resources. 

As a reminder, the following chart can be used to interpret effect sizes.

 Ultimately, what these numbers really allow teachers to do is approximate the comparative values of different reading/writing instruction methodologies in a more informed way.  Although this article includes studies with different effect size calculations (Hedge’s g and Cohen’s d), which has been a criticism of John Hattie’s ongoing work, the existing data on this subject is limited and there are too few studies to allow for more restrictive inclusion criteria. Acknowledging that the specific numbers which appear in this article may be off by slight degrees relative to one another, the individual numbers, themselves, are less relevant than the proportional deviation between different interventions, as the resulting hierarchy is not so dependent on numerical exactness as to be upended by the difference of a few hundredths of a decimal point.  


Ultimately, this research is a tool for introducing teachers to new or more evidence-based teaching methods. That said it should also be acknowledged that this list is a starting point. Teachers will need to experiment with these interventions (and any strategies they find in their own research ) to determine what best fits with and supports the unique learning environment of their classrooms. Simply because a pedagogical strategy or factor on this list has a low effect size, does not mean that it cannot be a powerful instructional tool with the right variables or that there are no students who will benefit from its use. So much of successful classroom teaching comes down to the different and often highly individual needs of students. What works for one class, or what worked for the classes in these studies, may not work for your students. There is an element of trial and error that is inescapable in classroom teaching, but this does not mean that teachers should have to rely on guesswork or single-handedly navigate the labyrinth of purported best practices.
 

Secondary Meta-Analysis Methodology: 

Table 1, is a synthesis of 20 meta-analyses on the topic of the science of reading. For some of these factors there were multiple meta-analyses of the topic. In these instances, the mean average of meta-analyses corrected for obvious outliers was used. In rare instances, where there were multiple meta-analyses, a single meta-analysis was chosen due to reasons to do with quality or specificity. For example, on “response to intervention” (RTI)  there have been four meta-analyses; however, only one of those meta-analyses was specifically looking at reading outcomes. In this instance, the reading RTI meta-analysis was selected. 

 

If you would like to better understand a factor or the meta-analysis used for a factor, there is a glossary at the end of the article that includes that information as well as citations. Factors with strong evidence of efficacy are blue, with moderate evidence of efficacy are green, with weak but statistically significant evidence are orange, and statistically insignificant results are red. 

 

Results:

While this infographic and secondary meta-analysis can be helpful for teachers, its biggest weakness is that it includes the effect sizes for all grades in a single medium. However, the literature usually shows substantially different results for instructional strategies in different grades. For this reason, the authors have chosen to break this data down further by grade division. 

 

Table 2: Pre-K to Kindergarten:

Table 2: indicates that there is strong scientific evidence for the instruction of morphology, vocabulary, and phonemic awareness, in the pre-k- to kindergarten age range. It also demonstrates that there is moderate scientific evidence for the instruction of phonics in this age range. That being said, the research is limited in this regard, so there needs to be some rationalistic determinations, to decide what is best practice in instruction for these ages. While phonics instruction is likely important in this age range, it can also be assumed that students also need to develop other even more foundational skills at the same time, to best get the benefits from phonics instruction. 


While morphology had one of the highest outcomes in this age range. Morphology is far more complex than phonics instruction and is less generalizable. As there are only 44 phonemes, and hundreds of morphemes if not thousands of morphemes it might make rational sense to teach at least some phonemes first. Additionally, while morphology instruction has been shown to have higher outcomes in this age range, there are very few morphology instruction studies for this demographic, and the mean effect size might come down over time. 

 

Table 3: Grades 1-2:

In the grades 1-2 there is strong scientific evidence for repeated reading, morphology, phonics, and vocabulary instruction. There are lower returns for phonemic awareness instruction, in comparison to the previous grades. This difference is likely, because students are transitioning from the pre-reading stage to the emerging stage. Students should know their letter names by name and they should be fairly familiar with English phonemes, but they are likely still struggling to connect phonemes to grapheme correspondences. While there is very strong evidence for repeated reading fluency instruction in this age range, it still likely makes sense to make sure they know their basic grapheme-phoneme correspondences, before teachers focus their efforts on fluency instruction.

Table 4: Grades 3-5:

In this grade range there is very strong evidence for fluency instruction,  morphology and comprehension instruction, there was moderate evidence for phonics and balanced literacy, and there was weak evidence for vocabulary instruction. This evidence here, clearly shows increasingly diminishing returns for decoding instruction, with strong evidence for fluency instruction.

Table 5: Grades 6-8:

In this grade range there is strong evidence for fluency instruction, moderate evidence for comprehension, and morphology instruction, and statistically insignificant evidence for vocabulary instruction. This would suggest that fluency and comprehension should be the most important focuses for this age range. However, there is clearly far less research for this age range, as for younger students. 

 

Table 6: Secondary:

While there is comparatively very little research on secondary student reading instruction. The current research suggests that fluency and comprehension instruction are the most important. 

Curriculum Recommendations:

Looking at meta-analysis through a grade-based lens can help teachers to understand the average effect of a specific instructional type. However, that information is context dependent. By breaking down this research by grade, teachers can make an informed decision as to what instructional factors are most likely going to increase their students' learning. However, there is not very comprehensive data available on this for all types of instruction for their impact across different grades and therefore some educated guesses must be made. For example, while there is strong evidence that phonemic awareness instruction is really important in pre-k and kindergarten, there is less comprehensive data for phonemic awareness after grade 2. The NRP meta-analysis for example only looked at phonemic awareness instruction in grades 2-6, but did not break it up according to grade within that range. However, phonemic awareness instruction shows diminishing returns starting in grade 1. Moreover, phonics also shows diminishing returns starting in grade three. With this information, a data-informed recommendation can be made that phonemic awareness is taught every day in pre-k and kindergarten and that it is slowly taught less and less over the rest of the primary grades.

 

In the primary grades and for struggling readers the most benefit can be found for phonemic awareness, phonics, morphology, and vocabulary instruction. This makes sense as these forms of instruction are all about helping students read individual words. However, by Grade 3, there are increasingly lowering returns for all of these forms of instruction. That being said there is strong evidence for fluency instruction, reciprocal teaching, and comprehension instruction in later grades.

 

In the junior grades, there exists strong evidence for repeated reading instruction, and moderate evidence for comprehension and morphology instruction, with weak evidence for vocabulary and phonics instruction. In the intermediate grades, there is strong evidence for repeated reading, moderate evidence for morphology and comprehension instruction, and weak to insignificant evidence for phonics and vocabulary instruction. 

 

Ultimately though, teachers probably want some kind of decoding/word work in all elementary grades, some form of fluency in all elementary grades (except maybe pre-k and kindergarten), some forms of writing instruction, and some form of comprehension instruction. However, there should not necessarily be the same amount of each type of instruction in each grade. As different types of language instruction show different levels of impact on reading progress in different grades. It therefore makes sense to spend more time on the types of instruction that will likely produce the greatest benefit in each grade. For example, there is reasonably strong evidence that vocabulary instruction is most effective in grades K-3; however, students in grade 12 will likely still need some vocabulary instruction within their year of English instruction. With these facts in mind, it makes sense to provide more vocabulary instruction in grade 1 than in grade 12. 

 

In the next graphic the authors and contributors of this paper have synthesized the above meta-analysis data into grade-based curriculum recommendations. However, a few disclaimers must be made: Firstly, this data is influenced primarily by the meta-analysis data; however, it is also influenced by our personal experiences as teachers and logical extrapolations. As previously stated there is not enough meta-analysis data at this point to only rely on such data and it is therefore necessary to bridge some of the scientific gaps, with logic and experience.

 

Secondly, these recommendations are not meant for intervention use, but for core instruction. Our intervention or tier 2 and tier 3 recommendations would be very different and much more dependent on the needs of individual students. Thirdly, while this infographic is data-informed, it is not a precise curriculum, but rather a loose set of data-informed recommendations. There is an art and a science to education and we do not believe that the science of reading has reached a point yet, where all recommendations can be purely scientific. 

 

According to Dr. Ehri, there are four phases of reading development: 

The pre-alphabetic phase: when students are first starting to learn letters ( most typically pre-k to kindergarten)

The partial-alphabetic phase: when students know the most common letter-sound correspondences but not all and cannot decode accurately yet (most typically grades 1-2).

The full alphabetic phase: When students know most or all letter-sound correspondences and can decode accurately (most typically grades 3-5).

The consolidated phase: When students can read fluently (most typically grades 6 and onwards). 

 

While these phases do correlate to specific grades, it is important to realize that not all students in a grade will be in the same reading phase. Some might be ahead and some might be below. This means that reading instruction has to be differentiated to student needs. For example, a grade 6 student who has not learned their letter-sound correspondences still needs to learn them. Reading instruction cannot be fully modified to grade level as students need to learn the foundational elements they have missed.  Ultimately a student's reading instruction should more closely match their reading stage, than their grade. 

 

Table 7: Shows Recommendations for Instruction Based on Students Individual Needs

Interventions.png

Of course the above framework is a deficit model. Instruction should never be limited one component of language at a time. With this in mind the above framework, is meant to suggest the focus of instruction, not the sole element of instruction.

 

“The Simple View of Reading” was an idea coined by Gough and Tunmer, in 1986, which claimed reading comprehension was primarily the result of decoding x word comprehension (vocabulary). With this theory, the idea was popularized that reading instruction had to include decoding and vocabulary instruction, in order for students to achieve fluency. Generally most types of instruction within a classroom can be broken down into the following sub-types: 

Pre-Reading: Phonemic awareness, and letter recognition instruction fall into this category.

Word Reading/Decoding: Morphology, phonics, and word identification fall into this category. 

Fluency Instruction: Repeated reading, guided reading, and varied reading would fall into this category. 

Comprehension Instruction: All forms of comprehension instruction and receptive vocabulary instruction would fall into this category. 

Writing Instruction: Printing, handwriting, spelling, and paragraph writing all fall into this category. 

 

With these theoretical terms in mind, the following recommendations were made by the writers and contributors of this paper for each grade. 

For a PDF version of our scope and sequence for easier readability, click here: 

Curriculum Recommendations A1.png
Curriculum Recommendations B1.png
Curriculum Recommendations C1.png
Curriculum Recommendations D1 (1).png
Curriculum Recommendations E1.png

Limitation & Application: 

A secondary meta-analysis allows teachers to make quick and evidence-based inferences about what interventions would be the most time-efficient for them to implement within their classrooms. However, as this research is based on the synthesis of multiple other meta-analyses we run the risk of taking the research further and further out of context. As study results are dependent on demographics, study design, and assessment. This research while, all based on peer-reviewed data, is not in itself peer-reviewed, which limits the academic validity of its findings.  It could also be argued that data is changeable and that these effect sizes could shift as more research is conducted or that the numbers, as they are now represented, could be influenced by errors in teacher/experimenter execution. 

 

Yet, this type of comparative analysis, at the very least, provides teachers with the foundations of a scientific meter for evaluating pedagogical strategies and a  jumping-off point for further research into their efficacy. It is the authors hope, then, that this article will be viewed not as a ranking system in the strictest sense, but rather as a springboard for directing the implementation of reading instructional strategies in an evidence-based way. Teachers have limited time within their planning and instruction. It therefore makes sense for teachers to focus their instruction on the pedagogies, strategies, and factors, which research has most consistently shown to have the highest impact on teaching outcomes. By presenting research in this model it democratizes the academic literature such that it requires less time for teachers to identify which factors have a strong evidence base and which do not. 

 

Factor Glossary:

Articulation Training: Teaching students grapheme phoneme correspondences with mouth pictures, videos, or demonstrations. 

The effect size here is a mean of the following three papers:

Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. K. (1999). Training Phonological Awareness with and without Explicit Attention to Articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(4), 271–304. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2490

 

Castiglioni-Spalten, M. L., & Ehri, L. C. (2003). Phonemic Awareness Instruction: Contribution of Articulatory Segmentation to Novice Beginners’ Reading and Spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_03

 

Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778


 

Analytic Phonics: Phonics instruction that focuses on larger chunks of sounds and often word families. This effect size was sourced from my language programs meta-analysis. 

 

N, Hansford. (2022). A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review of Language Programs. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/a-meta-analysis-of-language-programs>. 

 

Answering Specific Question: This effect size is based on the effect of having students answer knowledge and understanding questions on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis. 

 

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

 

Balanced Literacy: An instructional strategy that aims to bridge the gap between Whole Language and phonics. BL includes some phonics, but it is taught more implicitly and less systematically. BL programs often emphasize three cueing. This effect size was sourced from my language programs meta-analysis. 

 

N, Hansford. (2022). A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review of Language Programs. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/a-meta-analysis-of-language-programs>. 

 

Comprehension: This effect size is sourced from the 2021 Filderman, et al meta-analysis. 

 

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

 

Dictation: Having a teacher write for a student. This effect size is sourced from the 2011 

 

Gillespie meta-analysis. Gillespie, 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

 

Encouraging Students to Write More: This effect size is based on the impact of having students write more on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis. 

 

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

 

Goal Setting: This effect size is sourced from the 2011 Gillespie meta-analysis. 

 

Gillespie, 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

 

Graphic Organizers: This effect size is based on the impact of using graphic organizers on comprehension outcomes. This effect size is from the Okkinga et. al. meta-analysis.

 

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

 

Morphology: The teaching of meaning associated with grapheme-phoneme associations. These effect sizes are sourced from my morphology secondary meta-analysis. 

 

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

 

Mnemonics based phonics: Teaching phonics via mnemonic devices or via story based learning. This effect size is based on the Jolly phonics and Letterland studies. For more information click: https://www.teachingbyscience.com/letterland 

 

Memorization: This effect size is based on the impact of having students memorize information on comprehension outcomes. This effect size is from the Okkinga et. al. meta-analysis.

 

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

 

Modeling Comprehension: This effect size is based on the impact of teachers modeling comprehension on comprehension outcomes. This effect size is from the Okkinga et. al. meta-analysis.

 

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

 

One on One Fluency Interventions: This effect size is based on the impact of teachers providing one on one fluency interventions. This effect size is sourced from the Hudson meta-analysis. 

 

Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K. A., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties: A Synthesis of Research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), 52. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.3390/educsci10030052


 

Orton Gillingham: Structured Literacy Programs that place a strong emphasis on multi-sensory instruction. This effect size is sourced from my meta-analysis of language programs.

 

N, Hansford. (2022). A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review of Language Programs. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/a-meta-analysis-of-language-programs>. 

 

Peer Tutoring: This effect size is based on the impact of peer tutoring interventions focused on fluency. This effect size is sourced from the Hudson meta-analysis. 

 

Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K. A., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Reading Difficulties: A Synthesis of Research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), 52. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.3390/educsci10030052

 

Phonics: Teaching students how to decode based on phonemes. This effect size is sourced from the NRP meta-analysis. Grade based effect sizes for this study were sourced from 2022 Hansford Meta-analysis, as these effect sizes were more detailed, by grade. The effect sizes for grades 3-8 for phonics, were inflated due to mostly intervention studies. 

 

N, Hansford. (2022). Confirming the NRP Findings in 2022. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/_files/ugd/237d54_2fc4b30fff474501944754c178c79b43.pdf>. 

 

NRP. (2010). National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read. An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research On Reading and Its Implications for Reading. Retrieved from < https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf>.


 

Pre-Writing: Teaching students to plan what they write, using frameworks. This effect size is sourced from the 2011 Gillespie meta-analysis. 

 

Gillespie, 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

 

Procedural Writing: Writing, which consisted of students engaging in cycles of planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing their writing, sustained time for writing for authentic purposes and authentic audiences, and instruction conducted in mini-lessons to target students’ writing needs as they arose. This effect size is sourced from the 2011 Gillespie meta-analysis. 

 

Gillespie, 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

 

Phonemic Awareness: Teaching students how to identify and manipulate spoken sounds. 

This effect size is sourced from the NRP meta-analysis

 

NRP. (2002). National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read. An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research On Reading and Its Implications for Reading. Retrieved from < https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf>. 

 

Spelling Instruction: This effect size is based on the impact of spelling instruction on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis.

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

 

Spelling Strategies: This effect size is based on the impact of teaching spelling strategies on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis. 

 

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

 

Summarizing: This effect size is based on the impact of having students summarize what they read, on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis. 

 

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

 

Small Groups: This effect size is based on the impact of doing reading interventions in small groups. It’s from the Mathew Burns meta-analysis. 

Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66(Complete), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002

 

Synthetic Phonics: Synthetic phonics, involves teaching students the phonemes associated with graphemes, starting with the smallest units. This effect size is from the Hansford meta-analysis. 

 

Hansford, N & King, J. A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review of Language programs. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/a-meta-analysis-of-language-programs>. 

 

Read Aloud: This effect size was based on the impact of reading aloud to students. This effect size was based on the Swanson et. al. meta-analysis.

Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Heckert, J., Cavanaugh, C., Kraft, G., & Tackett, K. (2011). A Synthesis of Read-Aloud Interventions on Early Reading Outcomes Among Preschool Through Third Graders at Risk for Reading Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378444

 

RTI: As defined by John Hattie, “a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs. The RTI process begins with high-quality instruction and universal screening of all children in the general education classroom (Tier 1). Struggling learners are provided with interventions at increasing levels of intensity to accelerate their rate of learning. Those not making progress are then provided with increasingly intensive instruction usually in small groups (Tier 2). If still no progress, then students receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the students’ skill deficits (Tier 3).” This effect size is sourced from the 2011 Tran, Et al meta-analysis. 

 

Tran, L., Sanchez, T., Arellano, B., & Lee Swanson, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 44(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378447

 

Repeated Reading: Having students read a text over and over again for the purposes of developing fluency. This effect size is sourced from the transfer effects found in my secondary meta-analysis of the topic.

 

N, Hansford. (2022). Repeated Reading. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/repeated-reading>. 

 

Read Aloud: This effect size is sourced from the 2011, Swanson, Et, al meta-analysis. 

 

A Synthesis of Read-Aloud Interventions on Early Reading Outcomes Among Preschool Through Third Graders at Risk for Reading Difficulties. (2011). Journal of Learning Disabilities., 44(3), 258–275.

 

Reviewing Prior Knowledge: This effect size is based on the impact of reviewing prior knowledge on comprehension outcomes. This effect size is from the Okkinga et. al. meta-analysis.

 

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

Reciprocal Teaching: “An instructional strategy which aims to foster better reading comprehension and to monitor students who struggle with comprehension. The strategy contains four steps: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. It is “reciprocal” in that students and the teacher take turns leading a dialogue about the text in question, asking questions following each of the four steps. The teacher can model the four steps, then reduce her or his involvement so that students take the lead and are invited to go through the four steps after they read a segment of text.” (Hattie, 2022). This effect size is sourced from the 1994 Barak, Et, al meta-analysis. Rosenshine, Barak, and Carla Meister. “Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 64, no. 4, 1994, pp. 479–530. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1170585. Accessed 6 May 2020.

 

Teaching Prediction: This effect size is based on the impact of classroom teachers teaching prediction skills, on comprehension outcomes. This effect size is from the Okkinga et. al. meta-analysis.

 

Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., van Schooten, E., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of Reading-Strategy Interventions in Whole Classrooms: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1007/s10648-018-9445-7

 

Vocabulary: These effect sizes were sourced from my secondary meta-analysis of the topic. 

 

N, Hansford. (2022). Vocabulary Instruction. Teaching by Science. Retrieved from <https://www.teachingbyscience.com/vocabulary>. 

 

Whole Language: Language instruction which excludes the instruction of decoding skills. This effect size was sourced from John Hattie’s secondary meta-analysis of the topic. 

 

J, Hattie. (2022). Whole Language. Visible Learning Metax. Retrieved from <https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/influences/view/whole_language_approach>. 

 

Writing Notes: This effect size is sourced from the 2011 Gillespie meta-analysis. 

 

Gillespie, 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

 

Writing Personal Reactions: This effect size is based on the impact of having students write their reactions to texts, on reading outcomes. The effect size is sourced from Steve Graham et. al’s meta analysis. 

 

Graham, Steve & Hebert, Michael. (2011). Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading. Harvard Educational Review. 81. 710-744. 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566. 

Other References:

S, Parker. (2022). The Essential Linnea Ehri. Retrieved from <https://www.parkerphonics.com/post/the-essential-linnea-ehri>. 


L, Farrel. (2019). The Simple View of Reading. Reading Rockets. Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-view-reading>