Language Programs Ranked by Writing Outcome

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 writing 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:

 

ARC:

J, DuCette. 1999. An Evaluation of the

“100 Book Challenge Program”. Temple University. Retrieved from <https://www.americanreading.com/documents/report-ducette_1999.pdf>.

 

A, Gray. (2020). Zoology One. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from <https://www.americanreading.com/documents/cpre-study.pdf>.

Efficacy Evaluation.

 

CKLA:

Amplify. (2019). Amplify CKLA AZ grade 5 efficacy research report. Retrieved from <https://amplify.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CKLA_AZ-grade-5-efficacy-research-report.pdf>.

 

CKLA. (2019). CK Early Literacy Pilot. Retrieved from <https://amplify.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CKLA-Early-Literacy-Pilot.pdf>.

 

Cabell, S.Q., White, T.G., Kim, J., Hwang, H., & Gale, C. (2019, December). Impact of the Core Knowledge Language Arts read-aloud program on kindergarteners’ vocabulary, listening comprehension, and general knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Tampa, FL.

 

J, Wedman. (2004). Core Knowledge Curriculum and School Performance. University of Missour. Retrieved from <https://www.coreknowledge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CK_National_Study_2004.pdf>. 

 

Reading Recovery

 

R, Colvin. Reading Recovery Revisited. The School Superintendent Association. Retrieved from <https://aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=15712>

 

D’Agostino, J. V., & Harmey, S. J. (2016). An International Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 21(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2015.1112746

 

 

 

Gardner, J., Sutherland, A., & Meenan-Strain, C. (1998) Reading Recovery in Northern Ireland: The first two years. Belfast, Ireland: Blackstaff.  

 

Schwartz, Robert. (2005). Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the Reading Recovery Early Intervention.. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97. 257-267. 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.257.  


 

Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & May, H. (2018). The Impacts of Reading Recovery at Scale: Results From the 4-Year i3 External Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718764828

 

 

Burroughs-Lange, S. (2008). Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London Schools: A RR Follow-Up Study.

 

London, UK: Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ioe.ac.uk/Comparison_of_Literacy_Progress_of_Young_Children_in_London_Schools_-_A_Reading_Recovery_Follow_up_Study_.pdf

 

 Hurry, J., & Sylva, K. (2007). Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00338.x 

 

Pinnell, Html & Lyons, Carol & Deford, Diane & Bryk, Anthony & Seltzer, Michael. (1994). Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High-Risk First Graders. 

Reading Research Quarterly. 29. 10.2307/747736. 

 

Holliman, A.J., and Hurry, J. (2013) The effects of Reading Recovery on children's literacy progress and Special Educational Needs status: A three-year follow-up study. Educational Psychology, 33(6), pp. 719-733

 

 

 

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: an independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.2307/748206

 

Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational

 

Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED303790).

 

 DeFord, D., Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1987). Reading Recovery program: Report of the follow-up studies (Vol. VII). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.