This study examined the impact of independent practice of multiple-criteria text that targeted high-frequency words, decodability, and meaningfulness. Second-grade students, including at-risk students, were randomly assigned within classroom to a treatment group that read multiple-criteria text (n = 34), or contrast group that read authentic literature (i.e., children’s books without intentionally imbedded scaffolds; n = 28) during daily 30-min independent reading sessions for 10 weeks. Pre–post data analysis indicated no statistically significant group differences, though a moderate effect size of .67 was found for the word reading of developing decoders in the treatment group. HLM analyses also provided preliminary evidence that practice with multiple-criteria text may be more effective than practice with authentic literature for developing decoders but not advanced decoders.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
8.
ComptonD. L.AppletonA. C.HospM. K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 176–184. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00102.x
9.
CunninghamJ. W.SpadorciaS. A.EricksonK. A.KoppenhaverD. A.SturmJ. M.YoderD. E. (2005). Investigating the instructional supportiveness of leveled texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 410–427. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.4.2
10.
FloodJ.HasbrouckJ.HoffmanJ. V. (2000). McGraw-Hill reading. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.DavidsonK. C.HarmM. W.GriffinJ. (2004). Variability in text feature in six grade 1 basal reading programs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 167–197. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0802_4
12.
FoormanB. R.MoatsL. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51–60. doi:10.1177/07419325040250010601
13.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills, 6th edition. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
14.
GoodmanY.GoodmanK.MartensP. (2002). Text matters: Readers who learn with decodable texts. In SchalbertD. L.FairbanksC. M.WorthyJ.MalochB.HoffmanJ. V. (Eds.), 51st yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 186–203). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
15.
HiebertE. H. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. The Reading Teacher, 52, 552–566.
16.
HiebertE. H. (2005). The effects of text difficulty on second graders’ fluency development. Reading Psychology, 26, 183–209.
17.
HiebertE. H.FisherC. W. (2007). Critical word factor in texts for beginning readers. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 3–11. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.1.3-11
18.
HoffmanJ. V.RosnerN. L.PattersonE. U.SalasR.PenningtonJ. (2000). Text leveling and “little books” in first grade reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 507–528. doi:10.1080/10862960109548121
19.
JenkinsJ. R.PeytonJ. A.SandersE. A.VadasyP. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–85. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4
20.
JuelC.Roper/SchneiderD. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 134–152. doi:10.2307/747751
21.
MesmerH. A.CunninghamJ. W.HiebertE. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 235–258. doi:10.1002/rrq.019
22.
MesmerH. A. E. (2001a). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 121–142. doi:10.1080/19388070109558338
23.
MesmerH. A. E. (2001b). Examining the theoretical claims about decodable text: Does text decodability lead to greater application of letter-sound knowledge in first grade readers? In HoffmanJ. V.SchalbertD.FairbanksC.WorthyJ.MalochB. (Eds.), 50th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 444–459). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
24.
MesmerH. A. E. (2005). Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 61–86. doi:10.1080/10573560590523667
25.
MesmerH. A. E. (2010). Textual scaffolds for developing fluency in beginning readers: Accuracy and reading rate in qualitatively leveled and decodable text. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 20–39.
26.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel—Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
NumeroffL. (2000). If you take a mouse to the movies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
28.
PetscherY.SchatschneiderC. (2011). A simulation study on the performance of the simple difference and covariance-adjusted scores in randomized experimental designs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48, 31–43. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2010.00129.x
29.
Renaissance Learning. (2010). Renaissance learning: Advanced technology for data driven schools. Retrieved from http://www.renlearn.com/sr/
30.
RobertsJ. K. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2(1), 30–38.
31.
SimonS. (1994). Mountains. New York, NY: Morrow Junior Books.
32.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
StevensJ. (2005). My big dog. New York, NY: Random House.
