It is currently considered imperative to introduce reading instruction as early as possible. This proposition was tested by assigning groups of kindergarteners (N = 256) to two conditions differing in their emphasis on prevention. In the first, teacher–implemented research–based interventions were implemented during kindergarten and first grade. In the second, only the first–grade intervention was implemented. Analyses were conducted separately for students not at risk, at low risk, and at high risk of reading problems. In the short term, the kindergarten intervention was highly effective for both low–risk and high–risk students, but it is only for the latter group that early gains translated into better reading skills at the end of first grade. Not–at–risk students did not benefit from the early introduction of reading instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
2.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best pratices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.
3.
BarnettS. W., HustedtJ. T., FriedmanA. H., BoydJ. S., & AinsworthP. (2007). The state of preschool: 2007 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ : National Institute for Early Education Research.
4.
BlachmanB. A., TangelD. M., BallE. W., BlackR., & McGrawC. K. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two–year intervention with low–income, inner–city children. Reading and Writing, 11, 239–273.
5.
BormanG. D., SlavinR. E., CheungA., ChamberlainA., MaddenN. A., & ChambersB. (2005). Success for All: First–year results from the National Randomized Field Trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 1–22.
6.
BormanG. D., SlavinR. E., CheungA. C. K., ChamberlainA. M., & MaddenN. A. (2005). The National Randomized Field Trial of Success for All: Second–year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 673–696.
7.
BrodeurM. (2005). Évaluation de la connaissance du nom et du son des lettres [Assessment of knowledge of letter names and sounds]. Montréal, Canada : Université du Québec à Montréal.
8.
BrodeurM., GosselinC., MercierJ., LegaultF., & VanierN. (2006). Prévention des difficultés d'apprentissage en lecture: l'effet différencié d'un programme implanté par des enseignantes de maternelle chez leurs élèves [Prevention in reading: A differentiated effect]. Éducation et francophonie, 34, 56–84.
9.
ByrneB., Fielding–BarnsleyR., & AshleyL. (2000). Effects of preschool phoneme identity training after six years: Outcome level distinguished from rate of response. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 659–667.
10.
CarnineD. W., SilbertJ., Kame'enuiE. J., & TarverS. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Education.
11.
CeciS. J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
13.
DesrochersA. (2008). The assessment of reading skills among French–speaking children: test construction procedure and psychometric properties. Ottawa, Canada : Cognitive Psychology of Language Laboratory, University of Ottawa.
14.
DionÉ., BergeronL., & RouxC. (2005). Lire pour comprendre. Un test pour évaluer la fluidité et la compréhension en lecture à la fin de la première année du primaire. [Reading for Comprehension: Assessing Fluency and Reading at the End of First–Grade.]. Montreal, Canada : Université du Québec à Montréal.
15.
DionÉ., MorganP. L., FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (2004). The promise and limitations of reading instruction in the mainstream: The need for a multi–level approach. Exceptionality, 12, 163–173.
16.
DionÉ., PotvinM. –C., GosselinC., BrodeurM., MercierJ., & RouxC. (2009). Teacher's management of student's attention in regular education classrooms: Naturalistic practices and empirically–validated strategies. In SideridisG. D. & CitroT. A. (Eds.), Classroom Management and Learning Strategies for Struggling Learners (pp. 19–32). Weston, MA : Learning Disabilities Worlwide.
17.
DionE., RouxC., LandryD., FuchsD., WehbyJ., & DupéréV. (in press). Improving classroom attention and preventing reading difficulties among low–income first–graders: A randomized study. Prevention Science.
18.
FuchsD., FuchsL., EatonS., YoungC., MockD., & DionE. (2004). Hearing sounds in words: Preschoolers helping preschoolers in a downward extension of Peer–Assisted Learning Strategies. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Association, Atlanta, GA.
19.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (2005). Peer–Assisted Learning Strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. Journal of Special Education, 39, 34–44.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., ThompsonA., Al OtaibaS., YenL., YangN. J., . (2001). Is reading important in reading–readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–29.
24.
GerstenR., DarchC., & GleasonM. (1988). Effectiveness of a direct instruction academic kindergarten for low–income students. Elementary School Journal, 89, 226–240.
25.
HatcherP. J., HulmeC., & SnowlingM. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.
26.
HillC. J., BloomH. S., BlackA. R., & LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.
27.
LovettM. W., & SteinbachK. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children?Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189–210.
28.
MaddenN. A., SlavinR. E., KarweitN. L., DolanL. J., & WasikB. A. (1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner–city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123–148.
29.
MathesP. G., HowardJ. K., AllenS. H., & FuchsD. (1998). Peer–assisted learning strategies: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62–94.
30.
McMasterK. N., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
31.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Loisir et du Sport. (2001). Quebec education program: Preschool education and elementary education. Québec, Canada.
32.
National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2001). Still unacceptable trends in kindergarten entry and placement. Washington, DC : National Association for the Education of Young Children.
33.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC : National Academic Press.
34.
No Child Left Behind. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001Revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb
35.
O'ConnorR. E., BellK. M., HartyK. R., LarkinL. K., SackorS. M., & ZigmondN. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485.
36.
O'ConnorR. E., & JenkinsJ. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.
37.
RashotteC. A., MacPheeK., & TorgesenJ. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
38.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
39.
RaudenbushS. W., BrykA. S., CheongY. F., CongdonR., & Du ToitM. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwoood, IL : Scientific Software International.
40.
SimmonsD., & Kame'enuiE. J. (2002). Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Education.
41.
SlavinR. E., MaddenN. A., KarweitN. L., LivermonB. J., & DolanL. (1990). Success for All: First–year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255–278.
42.
Sprenger–CharollesL. (2008). Correspondances graphème–phonème et phonème–graphème: une comparaison de l'anglais, du français, de l'allemand et de l'espagnol. In DesrochersA., MartineauF., & MorinY. C. (Eds.), Orthographe française. Évolution et pratique [French Orthograph: Evolution and Practice] (pp. 213–225). Ottawa, Canada : Éditions David.
43.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effect in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
44.
StanovichK. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York : Guilford.
45.
Table des partenaires persévérance scolaire. (2006). Portrait du décrochage scolaire à Montréal [A description of dropout rates in Montreal], from http://www.decrochage–scolaire.info
46.
TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR. K., & RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficacy. Austin, TX : Pro–Ed.
47.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
VaughnS., & FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
50.
VecchiottiS. (2003). Kindergarten: An overlooked educational policy priority. Social Policy Reports, 17, 3–19.
