Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2013-8
A Longitudinal Cluster-Randomized Controlled Study on the Accumulating Effects of Individualized Literacy Instruction on Students’ Reading From First Through Third Grade
Using a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design, we examined whether students’ reading outcomes differed when they received 1, 2, or 3 years of individualized reading instruction from first through third grade, compared with a treated control group. More than 45% of students came from families living in poverty. Following students, we randomly assigned their teachers each year to deliver individualized reading instruction or a treated control condition intervention focused on mathematics. Students who received individualized reading instruction in all three grades showed the strongest reading skills by the end of third grade compared with those who received fewer years of such instruction. There was inconsistent evidence supporting a sustained first-grade treatment effect: Individualized instruction in first grade was necessary but not sufficient for stronger third-grade reading outcomes. These effects were achieved by regular classroom teachers who received professional development, which indicates that policies that support the use of evidence-based reading instruction and teacher training can yield increased student achievement.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.GreulichL.MeadowsJ.LiZ. (2011). Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 535–560.
2.
BosC.MatherN.NarrR. F.BaburN. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 227–238.
3.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2012). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (Working paper 17699). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.pdf
4.
ConnorC. M.FishmanB.CroweE.UnderwoodP.SchatschneiderC.MorrisonF. J. (2013). Teachers’ use of Assessment to Instruction (A2i) software and third graders’ reading comprehension gains. In ShamirA.KoratO. (Eds.), Technology as a support for literacy achievements for children at risk (pp. 123–140). New York, NY: Springer.
5.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.FishmanB.GiulianiS.LuckM.UnderwoodP. S. . . . SchatschneiderC. (2011). Testing the impact of Child Characteristics × Instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 189–221.
6.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.FishmanB. J.PonitzC. C.GlasneyS.UnderwoodP. . . . SchatschneiderC. (2009). The ISI classroom observation system: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, 38, 85–99.
7.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.FishmanB. J.SchatschneiderC.UnderwoodP. (2007). The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315, 464–465. doi:10.1126/science.1134513
8.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.SchatschneiderC.TosteJ.LundblomE. G.CroweE.FishmanB. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristic by instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 173–207.
9.
ConnorC. M.PiastaS. B.FishmanB.GlasneyS.SchatschneiderC.CroweE. . . . MorrisonF. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77–100.
10.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C.HarnB. A. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90–104. doi:10.1177/00222194040370020101
11.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44.
14.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
15.
FoormanB. R.SchatschneiderC.EakinM. N.FletcherJ. M.MoatsL. C.FrancisD. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.PhillipsN. B.KarnsK.DutkaS. (1997). Enhancing students helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.
17.
GamseB. C.JacobR. T.HorstM.BoulayB.UnluF. (2008). Reading First Impact Study final report (ncee 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
18.
HillC.BloomeH.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.
19.
James-BurdumyS.DekeJ.Lugo-GilJ.CareyN.HersheyA.GerstenR. . . . FaddisB. (2010). Effectiveness of selected supplemental reading comprehension interventions: Findings from two student cohorts. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
20.
JusticeL. M.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.MashburnA. (2011). Peer effects in preschool classrooms: Is children’s language growth associated with their classmates’ skills? Child Development, 82, 1768–1777.
21.
KonstantopoulosS.ChungN. (2011). The persistence of teacher effects in elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 361–386.
22.
LeeV.LoebS. (1995). Where do Head Start attendees end up? One reason why preschool effects fade out. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 62–82.
23.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K. (2006). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (4th ed.). Iowa City, IA: Houghton Mifflin.
24.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
25.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Reading Panel report: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
26.
PiantaR. C.BelskyJ.HoutsR.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Teaching: Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.
27.
RaudenbushS. W. (2004). What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice?Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 121–129.
28.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
ReynoldsA. J.TempleJ. A.RobertsonD. L.MannE. A. (2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago child-parent centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267–303.
30.
RothsteinJ. (2008). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement (Working paper 14442). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14442.pdf?new_window=1
31.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellJ. R. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
32.
ShareD. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
33.
ShavelsonR. J.TowneL. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
38.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
