The impact of tier 1 reading instruction on reading outcomes for students in Grades 4–12: A meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1639-1665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Swanson ◽  
Elizabeth A. Stevens ◽  
Nancy K. Scammacca ◽  
Philip Capin ◽  
Alicia A. Stewart ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Stevens ◽  
Christy Austin ◽  
Clint Moore ◽  
Nancy K. Scammacca ◽  
Alexis N. Boucher ◽  
...  

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grass-roots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at-risk for world-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006) and What Works Clearinghouse reports (WWC, 2010) yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; ES = 0.22, p = .40); though the mean effect size was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .59) for students with or at-risk for WLRD. More high quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.


2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Graham ◽  
Xinghua Liu ◽  
Brendan Bartlett ◽  
Clarence Ng ◽  
Karen R. Harris ◽  
...  

This meta-analysis examined if students’ writing performance is improved by reading interventions in studies (k = 54 experiments; 5,018 students) where students were taught how to read and studies (k = 36 investigations; 3,060 students) where students’ interaction with words or text was increased through reading or observing others read. Studies included in this review involved true- or quasi-experiments (with pretests) written in English that tested the impact of a reading intervention on the writing performance of students in preschool to Grade 12. Studies were not included if the control condition was a writing intervention, treatment students received writing instruction as part of the reading intervention (unless control students received equivalent writing instruction), control students received a reading intervention (unless treatment students received more reading instruction than controls), study attrition exceeded 20%, less than 10 students were included in any experimental condition, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, teaching reading strengthened writing, resulting in statistically significant effects for an overall measure of writing (effect size [ES] = 0.57) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.63), words written (ES = 0.37), or spelling (ES = 0.56). The impact of teaching reading on writing was maintained over time (ES = 0.37). Having students read text or observe others interact with text also enhanced writing performance, producing a statistically significant impact on an overall measure of writing (ES = 0.35) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.44) or spelling (ES = 0.28). These findings provide support that reading interventions can enhance students’ writing performance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292199340
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Stevens ◽  
Christy Austin ◽  
Clint Moore ◽  
Nancy Scammacca ◽  
Alexis N. Boucher ◽  
...  

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; effect size [ES] = 0.32; p = .24), although the mean ES was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .57) for students with or at risk for WLRD. More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.


2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Blaine ◽  
Jennifer McElroy ◽  
Hilary Vidair
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Csilla Rákosi

Psycholinguistic research into metaphor processing is burdened with empirical problems as experiments provide diverging evidence on the impact of conventionality, familiarity and aptness, and with conceptual issues as the interpretation and operationalization of the three concepts mentioned, as well as the related predictions which can be drawn from theories of metaphor processing, are controversial in the literature. This paper uses tools of statistical meta-analysis in order to bring us closer to the solution of these problems and reveal future lines of research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document