EVIDENCE-BASED
READING INSTRUCTION:
The Critical Role of Scientific
Research in Teaching Children,
Empowering Teachers, and Moving
Beyond the “Either-Or Box”
G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D.
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development
National Institutes of Health
Lyonr@mail.nih.gov
READING FAILURE: AN
EDUCATIONAL AND A PUBLIC
HEALTH PROBLEM
Reading Proficiency is Critical to Academic
Learning and Success in School (Lyon, 1998;
2002, 2003, 2004; Snow, Burns & Griffin,
1998)
The Ability to Read Proficiently is Significantly
Related to Quality of Life and Health
Outcomes (Lyon, 1997; Lyon & Chhabra,
2004; Thompson, 2001)
READING PROFICIENCY
IN 2004
HOW ARE WE DOING IN THE UNITED
STATES?
DO MORE STUDENTS HAVE GREATER
DIFFICULTIES LEARNING TO READ TODAY
THAN:
10 YEARS AGO?
20 YEARS AGO?
30 YEARS AGO?
Long Term Trends in Reading
Achievement From the National
Assessment of Educational Progress
Right now, all over the United States, we are leaving too
many children behind in reading
And, a large share of those children come from poor
and minority homes
Percent of Students Performing Below Basic Level - 37%
10
White
20
30
40
50
60
70
27
Black
63
Hispanic
58
Poor
60
Non-poor
26
80
90
100
“Current difficulties in reading
largely originate from rising
demands for literacy, not from
declining absolute levels of
literacy”
Report of the National Research Council
MAJOR SOURCES OF
READING FAILURE
Socioeconomic Factors – Poverty
Biological Factors – Genetics and
Neurobiology
Instructional Factors - Predominate
SOME REASONS WHY READING
INSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN
HELPFUL
Untested Theories and Assumptions
Regarding Reading Development and
Instruction
Romantic Beliefs About Learning and
Teaching
Fads
Appeals to “So Called” Authority
Some Myths About Interventions
for Struggling Readers
Learning to Read is a Natural Process
Children who Struggle to Learn To Read in the Early
Grades Will “Catch Up” If You give Them Time
Children are Either Auditory or Visual Learners and
Should Be Taught to Read Accordingly
Theories of “Multiple Intelligences” or “Learning
Styles” Can Help Us Adapt Our Reading Instruction
to the Needs of Different Children
Quality Time With an Enthusiastic Volunteer Tutor
Can Solve Most Children’s Reading Difficulties
BUT, RISING NEEDS FOR
HIGH LEVELS OF
LITERACY…
Demand That We Break the Mold of Past
Performance!!!
We Must Do Better Than Has Ever Been
Done Before!!!
THIS WIL NOT BE EASY!!!!!!!!
What makes us think we can do
better?
We now have substantial converging scientific
evidence about:
• How children learn to read
• Why some children have difficulty
• How to prevent and remediate reading
difficulties
Federal funding for the prevention and
remediation of reading failure has increased
significantly
What makes us think we can do
better?
There is an emphasis on accountability:

We use assessments to tell us how well
students are reading

We use assessment data to inform
instruction

We have many examples of schools that
beat the odds in reading achievement
when valid assessments and evidencebased instruction are provided
What makes us think we can do
better?
We are shifting from grounding
educational practices and policies in
political and philosophical contexts to
basing instruction on the attitudes and
values of science
We are relying on scientific criteria for
the evaluation of knowledge claims:
Peer Reviewed Publication
 Replication (Convergence)
 Scientific Consensus

Scientific Research
A process of rigorous reasoning based on interactions among
theories methods, and findings;
Builds on understanding derived from the objective testing of
models or theories;
Accumulation of scientific knowledge is laborious, plodding, and
indirect;
Scientific knowledge is developed and honed through critique
contested findings, replication, and convergence;
Scientific knowledge is developed through sustained efforts;
Scientific inquiry must be guided by fundamental principles.
Reading Research is Not an
Either-Or Proposition
THE SCIENTIFIC QUALITY OF A STUDY HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT EMPLOYS
QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND
METHODS
A QUALITY RESEARCH PROGRAM REFLECTS A
DIMENSION OF INQUIRY FROM DESCRIPTION
THROUGH CONFIRMATION
Reading Research is Not an
Either-Or Proposition
Designs and methods are selected to
permit direct investigation of the question
The trustworthiness of any study is
predicated on:


The appropriateness of the design and
methods to address the specific questions
The scientific rigor with which the design and
method are applied
Reading Research is Not an
Either-Or Proposition
The Majority of NICHD Supported
Studies Include BOTH Quantitative and
Qualitative Designs and Methods
An Examination of the Social
and Cultural Influences on
Adolescent Literacy
Development
Elizabeth Birr Moje
Jacquelynne Eccles
Pamela Davis-Kean
Helen Watt
Paul Richardson
University of Michigan
Assessments
Interviews
Observation
Literacy Skills
in Context
Surveys
Interviews
Diary Studies
Observation
Motivations
&
Expectancies
Examination of
Social and Cultural Influences on
Adolescent Literacy Development
Out-of-School
Engagements
Observation
Interviews
Textual Analyses
Assessments
Transfer Across
Contexts
Observation
Interviews
Experimental Tasks
Summary of Scientific Criteria
A study is deemed to be “scientific” when:
 There
are a clear set of testable questions underlying
the design;
 The
methods are appropriate to answer the questions
and falsify competing hypotheses and answers;
 The
study is explicitly linked to theory and previous
research;
 The
data are analyzed systematically and with the
appropriate tools;
 The
data are made available for review and criticism.
HOW WAS THE SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE OBTAINED AND
UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?
A Commitment to Focus on Four Research
Questions:
How Do Children Learn to Read?
Why Do Some Children Have Difficulties
Learning To Read?
How Can Reading Failure Be Prevented?
How Can Persistent Reading Difficulties be
Remediated?
THE NICHD SCIENTIFIC
INVESTMENT in READING – K-6
Number of Research Sites:
Children and Adults Studied:
Proficient Readers:
At-Risk/Struggling Readers
Average Years Studied/Followed:
Max Longitudinal Span to Date:
Current Prevention/Intervention Trials
Schools Currently Participating:
Classrooms Currently Participating:
Classroom Teachers Participating:
Annual Research Budget:
44
48,000
22,000
26,000
9
22
12
266
985
1,012
$ 60 Million
NICHD Reading Research Program
University of Washington
Berninger
Boy’s Town
Smith
Loyola Univ/Chicago
Morrison
Mayo Clinic
Kalusic
Univ of
Massachusetts
Syracuse Univ
Rayner
Blachman
Tufts
Wolf
Toronto
Lovett
SUNY Albany
Vellutino
San Luis Ebispo
Lindamood/Bell
Emerson Coll
Aram
Beth Israel
Galaburda
Yale Univ
Shaywitz
Univ of Southern
California
Manis/Seidenberg
Haskins Labs
Fowler/Liberman
Johns Hopkins
Denckla
UC Irvine
Filipek
Univ of California
--San Diego,
Salk Institute
Bellugi
Children’s
Hospital/
Harvard LDRC
Waber
D.C./Houston
Foorman/Moats
Georgetown Univ
Eden
U of Houston
Francis
Colorado LDRC
Defries
Bowman Gray
Wood
Georgia State
R. Morris
Yale Methodology
Fletcher
Univ of Texas Med Ctr
Foorman/Fletcher
NICHD Sites
Florida State
Torgesen/Wagner
Univ of Missouri
Southern Illinois U
Geary
Moltese
Univ of Arkansas-Med Ctr
Dykman
Univ of Georgia
Hynd
U of Florida
Alexander/Conway
The NICHD/OSERS/OVAE Scientific
Investment Grades 7-12
Adolescent Literacy Network
Funded in 2004, will study >12,700 students across five projects
Elizabeth Birr Moje: University of Michigan – Social and Cultural
Influences on Adolescent Development and Literacy
Bennett Shaywitz: Yale University – Adolescent Literacy:
Classification, Mechanism, and Outcomes
James McPartland: Johns Hopkins University – Supporting
Teachers to Close Adolescent Literacy Gaps
Laurie Cutting: Kennedy Krieger Institute – Cognitive and Neural
Process in Reading Comprehension
Hollis Scarborough: Haskins Labs – Adolescent Reading
Programs : Behavioral and Neural Effects
The NICHD/IES Scientific Investment:
English Language Learners
80 Research Sites in 12 States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico
Children Studied: ~ 9,000
Scientific Investment: ~ $32 Million Dollars over five years
Dr. David Francis: University of Houston
Dr. Diane August: Center for Applied Linguistics
Dr. Carol Hammer: Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Mark Innocenti: Utah State University
Dr. Kim Lindsey: University of Southern California
Dr. Alexandra Gottarda: Grand Valley State University
The NICHD/NIFL/OVAE
Scientific Investment
Adult Literacy Network
80 Research Sites in 16 States
Adults to be screened: 73,000 Adults to be studied: > 3,800
Scientific Investment: > $18.5 Million Dollars over five years

Daphne Greenberg: Georgia State University, Research on
Reading Instruction for Low Literate Adults

Susan Levy: University of Illinois, Testing Impact of Health Literacy
in Adult Literacy and Integrated Family Approach Programs

Daryl Mellard: University of Kansas – Lawrence, Improving Literacy
Instruction for Adults

John Sabatini: Educational Testing Services, Relative Effectiveness
of Reading Programs for Adults

Frank Wood: Wake Forest University of the Health Sciences, Young
Adult Literacy Problems: Prevalence and Treatment

Richard Venezky: University of Delaware, Building a Knowledge
Base for Teaching Adult Decoding
The NICHD/OSEP/HHS Scientific
Investment: Early Childhood and
School Readiness
WHICH EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
OR PROGRAM COMPONENTS ALONG
WITH INTERACTIONS WITH ADULTS AND
PEERS ARE EFFECTIVE FOR PROMOTING
EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT:
FOR WHICH CHILDREN
UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS
The NICHD/OSEP/HHS
Scientific Investment:
Early Childhood and
School Readiness Network
Annual Research Budget:
$7.5 Million
Dr. Karen Berman: Penn State U.
Dr. John Fantuzzo: U. Pennsylvania
Dr. Carollee Howes: UCLA
Dr. Janis Kupersmidt: UNC-Chapel Hill
Dr. Samuel Odom: Indiana U.
Dr. Robert Pianta: U. of Virginia
Dr. Cybelle Raver: U. of Chicago
Dr. Susan Sheridan: U. of Nebraska
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
Critical Language and Literacy Interactions
from Birth Onward
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Reading Comprehension Strategies
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
EARLY LANGUAGE AND
LITERACY INTERACTIONS
Language
Hart and Risley (1995) conducted
a longitudinal study of children
and families from three groups:
Professional families
Working-class families
Families on welfare
Interactions
Hart & Risley compared the
mean number of interactions
initiated per hour in each of the
three groups.
50
40
30
20
10
0
Welfare
Working
Professional
Interactions
Hart & Risley also compared
the mean number of minutes
of interaction per hour in the
three groups.
50
40
30
20
10
0
Welfare
Working
Professional
Differences in exposure to words
over the course of one year
Children in Professional Families -- 11 million
Children in Working-Class Families -- 6 million
Children in Welfare Families -- 3 million
Cumulative Language Experiences
Cumulative Words Spoken to Child
(in millions)
50
40
30
Professional
Working
20
Welfare
10
0
0
12
24
Age of child
(in months)
36
48
The Effects of Weaknesses in Oral Language on Reading
Growth
(Hirsch, 1996)
16
High Oral
Language in
Kindergarten
15
14
5.2 years difference
Reading Age
Level
13
12
11
Low Oral Language
in Kindergarten
10
9
8
7
6
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Chronological Age
14
15
16
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ ?
PHONEMIC AWARENESS
What is Phonological Awareness?
Phonological awareness involves the
understanding that spoken words are
composed of segments of sound smaller than
a syllable. It also involves the ability to
notice, think about, or manipulate the
individual sounds in words.
Why is phonological
awareness important in
learning to read?
It helps children understand the
alphabetic principle
Children must understand that the words in
their oral language are composed of small
segments of sound in order to comprehend
the way that language is represented by
print.
Without at least emergent levels of phonemic
awareness, the rationale for learning
individual letter sounds, and “sounding out”
words is not understandable.
Growth in “phonics” ability of children who begin first
grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme Awareness and
Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)
6
Reading Grade Level
5
4
5.9
Low PA
Low
Ave. PA
Average
3
2.3
2
1
K
1
2
3
4
Grade level corresponding to age
5
Growth in word reading ability of children who begin
first grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme Awareness
and Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)
6
Low PA
Low
Average
Ave. PA
5
Reading grade level
5.7
4
3.5
3
2
1
K
1
2
3
4
Grade level corresponding to age
5
Growth in reading comprehension of children who
begin first grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme
Awareness and Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)
6.9
Reading Grade Level
6
5
Low
Average
4
3.4
3
2
Same verbal ability –
Low PA
very different
Reading
Ave. PA
Comprehension
1
K
1
2
3
4
Grade level corresponding to age
5
Mean Effect Sizes Produced by
Phonemic Awareness Instruction on
Reading Outcomes (Ehri, 2004)
Characteristics
Of Reading Outcomes
Phonemic Awareness
Word Reading
Pseudo Word Reading
Spelling
Comprehension
Math
Effect Size
.86*
.46*
.52*
.59*
.34*
.15
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
PHONICS
(PHONEMIC DECODING )
What is “Phonics”?
It is a kind of knowledge
Which letters are used to represent which
phonemes
It is a kind of skill
Pronounce this word…
blit
fratchet
Connecticut Longitudinal
Study (Shaywitz et al.)
The next slide shows correlations over time
between the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
Passage Comprehension Scores and WRMT
Decoding composite (Letter Word and Word
Attack) scores
The CLS sample is an epidemiologic sample
from Connecticut, largely white, middle to
upper income children (Shaywitz, et al.,
1990) with very low attrition (over 90%
retention through Grade 9)
Correlation between Decoding and Comprehension
on the Woodcock-Johnson from Grades 1-9 (N=395)
Comprehension
Grade
Decoding
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.89
.75
.70
.64
.58
.59
.53
.49
.52
.79
.83
.74
.71
.63
.65
.61
.58
.58
.73
.78
.77
.74
.68
.67
.65
.62
.60
.69
.74
.74
.73
.67
.68
.65
.62
.62
.64
.70
.71
.70
.70
.67
.68
.64
.60
.66
.70
.75
.74
.69
.69
.69
.65
.63
.66
.71
.72
.72
.67
.67
.69
.65
.63
.61
.68
.72
.68
.66
.66
.66
.63
.61
.65
.69
.71
.70
.66
.66
.68
.63
.63
Early Interventions Sample
(Foorman, et al.)
The following slide shows correlations for two
measures of comprehension, WJ PC and the
CRAB (Fuchs & Fuchs), with two measures of
decoding over four years in a freshened
longitudinal sample recruited from 17 high
poverty schools in two cities.
The sample was over 95% African American.
Children were randomly sampled from
Kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms and
followed longitudinally through Grade 4.
Correlations for WJ PC and CRAB with three
Decoding Measures from Grades 1 to 4 for
Ethnic-minority Children
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
PREDICTOR
PC_W
CRAB
PC_W
CRAB
PC_W
CRAB
PC_W
CRAB
WJ LETTER WORD
W SCORE
0.7399
<.0001
1432
0.769 0.7910
5 <.0001
<.000
1086
1
504
0.716 0.7685
64
4
<.000 <.0001
1
1063
1044
0.650 0.7541
53
2
<.000 <.0001
1
712
1042
0.666
56
<.000
1
706
WJ WORD ATTACK
W SCORE
0.7044
2
<.0001
1423
0.621 0.3917
99
0
<.000 <.0001
1
1089
504
0.316 0.2402
29
5
<.000 <.0001
1
1063
1049
0.248 0.6414
92
2
<.000 <.0001
1
712
1042
0.597
55
<.000
1
706
Mean Effect Sizes Produced by
Systematic Phonics Instruction
Characteristics
Of Reading Outcomes
Effect Sizes
Kindergarten and First Graders
Decoding Regular Words
Decoding pseudowords
Reading Miscellaneous Words
Spelling Words
Reading Text Orally
Comprehending Text
.98*
.67*
.45*
.67*
.23*
.51*
Mean Effect Sizes Produced By
Systematic Phonics Instruction
Characteristics
Of Reading Outcomes
Effect Sizes
Second Through Sixth Grade
Decoding Regular Words
Decoding Pseudowords
Reading Miscellaneous Words
Spelling Words
Reading Text Orally
Comprehending Text
.49*
.52*
.33*
.09
.24*
.12
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
READING FLUENCY
A common definition of reading fluency:
“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly,
accurately, and with proper expression.”
National Reading Panel
The most common method of measuring
reading fluency in the early elementary
grades:
Measuring the number of accurate words per
minute a child can read orally
The challenge of continuing growth
in fluency becomes even greater
after third grade
4th, 5th, and 6th graders encounter about
10,000 words they have never seen before in
print during a year’s worth of reading
Furthermore, each of these “new” words
occurs only about 10 times in a year’s worth
of reading
Sadly, its very difficult to correctly guess the
identity of these “new words” just from the
context of the passage
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
VOCABULARY
Relationship between Vocabulary Score
(PPVT) measures in Kindergarten and later
reading comprehension
End of Grade One -- .45
End of Grade Four -- .62
End of Grade Seven -- .69
The relationship of vocabulary to reading
comprehension gets stronger as reading material
becomes more complex and the vocabulary
becomes becomes more extensive (Snow, 2002)
Bringing
Words to Life
Isabel Beck
M. McKeown
L. Kucan
Guilford Press
Big ideas from “Bringing Words to Life”
First-grade children from higher SES groups know about
twice as many words as lower SES children.
Poor children, who enter school with vocabulary
deficiencies have a particularly difficult time learning
words from “context.”
Research has discovered much more powerful ways of
teaching vocabulary than are typically used in
classrooms.
A “robust” approach to vocabulary instruction involves
directly explaining the meanings of words along with
thought-provoking, playful, interactive follow-up.
What we haven’t yet
demonstrated we know
how to do
Close the “vocabulary gap”
between low SES and higher SES
children
This gap arises because of massive
differences in opportunities to learn
“school vocabulary” in the home.
HOW DO CHILDREN
LEARN TO READ?
COMPREHENSION
Some definitions of reading
comprehension to make a point about
remaining gaps in our knowledge
“Acquiring meaning from written text”
Gambrell, Block, and Pressley, 2002
“the process of extracting and constructing
meaning through interaction and involvement with
written language”
Sweet and Snow, 2002
“thinking guided by print”
Perfetti, 1985
Preparing children to meet grade level
standards in reading comprehension by
the end of third grade is as much about
providing the vocabulary and thinking
skills they need as it is about helping
them learn to read accurately and
fluently
This point becomes increasingly
important as we move up the grades
What we know about the factors that
affect reading comprehension
Proficient comprehension of text is influenced by:
Accurate and fluent word reading skills
Oral language skills (vocabulary, linguistic comprehension)
Extent of conceptual and factual knowledge
Knowledge and skill in use of cognitive strategies to
improve comprehension or repair it when it breaks down.
Reasoning and inferential skills
Motivation to understand and interest in task and
materials
•Life Experience
•Content Knowledge
•Activation of Prior
Knowledge
•Knowledge about
Texts
Knowledge
•Motivation &
Engagement
•Active Reading
Strategies
•Monitoring Strategies
•Fix-Up Strategies
Language
Reading
Comprehension
Metacognition
•Oral Language Skills
•Knowledge of Language
Structures
•Vocabulary
•Cultural Influences
Fluency
•Prosody
•Automaticity/Rate
•Accuracy
•Decoding
•Phonemic Awareness
Why the disparity between early wordlevel outcomes and later
comprehension of complex texts?
Demands of vocabulary in complex text at third grade
and higher place stress on the remaining SES
related “vocabulary gap”
More complex text demands reading comprehension
strategies and higher level thinking and reasoning
skills that remain “deficient” in many children
A big idea to keep in mind:
Preparing children to meet grade level standards
in reading comprehension by the end of third
grade and beyond is a job for all teachers, not just
“reading teachers” and special educators.
It’s at least as much about building content
knowledge, vocabulary, and thinking skills as it is
about helping children learn to read accurately and
fluently
WHAT DOES THE
RESEARCH
SAY ABOUT
INSTRUCTION?
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
5 + ii + 3 + iii = NCLB
Five Instructional Components:
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Identifying words
accurately and
fluently
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension strategies
Constructing
meaning once
words are
identified
“High quality initial instruction in the classroom is
the first line of defense against reading difficulties”
NRC report, 1999
“The characteristics of a good program are that
it contains the five elements identified in the
legislation, and that these elements are
integrated into a coherent instructional design.
A coherent design includes explicit instructional
strategies, coordinated instructional sequences,
ample practice opportunities and aligned
student materials.”
HOW ARE WE DOING?
SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT
EARLY INTERVENTION
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES IN
SCHOOLS
120
100
80
60
40
70
71.8
20
G
ra
de
6
G
ra
de
5
G
ra
de
4
0
G
ra
de
3
Standard Score in
Reading
Change in Reading Skill for Children with
Reading Disabilities who Experience
Growth in Reading of .04 Standard
Deviations a Year
Grade Level
Average
Readers
Disabled
Readers
HOW CAN WE PREVENT
READING FAILURE?
Development of Sensitive and Valid
Screening Measures
Professional Development and Use of a
Professional Common Language
Implementation of Three-Tier Models
Continuous Assessment of Progress
Appreciation of School Leadership and
Capacity Factors
We do not yet know how to prevent
reading difficulties in “all” children
Percent of children scoring below the 30th percentile
Author
Type
Before
After
Foorman
174 hrs. – classroom
35%
6%
Felton
340 hrs. – groups of 8
32%
5%
Vellutino
35-65 hrs. 1:1 tutoring
46%
7%
Torgesen
88 hrs. 1:1 tutoring
30%
4%
Torgesen
80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring
11%
2%
Torgesen
91 hrs. 1:3 or 1:5 tutoring 8%
1.6%
Mathes
80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring
.02%
1%
Standard Score
Growth in Total Reading Skill Before,
During, and Following Intensive
Intervention
95
90
85
LIPS
80
EP
75
P-Pretest
Pre Post
1 year
2 year
Interval in Months Between Measurements
Outcomes from 67.5 Hours of Intensive LIPS Intervention
100
96
91
30%
89
90
86
80
83
75
74
70
73
68
Word
Attack
Text Reading
Accuracy
Reading
Comp.
71
Text
Reading
Rate
Why are so many children currently being left behind?
1. Many elementary schools are not organized or focused in
ways that most effectively promote literacy in all children.
2. Teachers often do not possess the special knowledge or
teaching skill to effectively teach children who experience
difficulties learning to read.
3. Many families and neighborhood environments do not provide
experiences that prepare children to learn to read well.
4. There is significant variability in the language-based talents
required for learning to read.
5. Many schools do not really expect children from low wealth or
minority backgrounds to learn to read well.
6. Teachers often do not have adequate materials or instructional
time available to them to effectively promote literacy in all their
children.
Evidence from one school that we can do
substantially better than ever before
School Characteristics:
70% Free and Reduced Lunch (going up each year)
65% minority (mostly African-American)
Elements of Curriculum Change:
Movement to a comprehensive reading curriculum beginning
in 1994-1995 school year (incomplete implementation) for K-2
Improved implementation in 1995-1996
Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more
intensive small group instruction for at-risk students
Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years
Proportion falling
below the 25th
percentile in word
reading ability at the
end of first grade
30
20
Screening at beginning of first
grade, with extra instruction
for those in bottom 30-40%
31.8
20.4
10.9
10
6.7
3.7
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Average Percentile
for entire grade (n=105)
48.9 55.2
61.4
73.5
81.7
The consensus view of most important
instructional features for interventions
Interventions are more effective when they:
Provide systematic and explicit instruction on whatever
component skills are deficient: phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies
Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction
Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills
Provide systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context
Provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn
to apply new skills
Reading
stimulates
general
cognitive
growth—
particularly
verbal skills
Meanwhile, Back in the
Brain
Kindergarten
S#1
S#31
At Risk Reader
Left
Kindergarten
First Grade
Right
One Year After Intervention
Right
R
L
1
Left
1
Z=+12
2
6
Z=-4
7
3
5
4
Shaywitz et al., Biol.
Psychiatry, 2004