Lessons Learned? Reading Wars, Reading First, and a Way Forward

Goldberg, Marvin E.; Goldenberg, Claude

doi:10.1002/trtr.2079

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The great debate about the efficacy of reading different types of texts in beginning reading instruction has again become prominent among policymakers and researchers (Goldberg & Goldenberg, 2022). The two text types at the center of the current debate are decodable texts, which include controlled vocabulary that emphasizes taught phonetic patterns, and nondecodable texts, which do not include such vocabulary control (Schwartz, 2019; The Reading League, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions

Pugh

Kearns

Hiebert³

2023

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers disagree about the value of controlling the decodability of texts for students with reading difficulty, specifically what type of text they should read: decodable texts (words limited to taught patterns), nondecodable texts (those not limited by instruction), or both. We analyzed the effects of reading intervention for elementary‐age students with reading difficulty (k = 119) to determine whether effects varied by the type of texts students read—decodable, nondecodable, or both—compared with interventions without text reading. Inadequate information was available to code text type for 22 interventions including text reading; effect sizes were calculated for 97 studies. Effects for interventions with decodable or nondecodable reading did not differ from no‐text interventions. For both types of interventions, the effect (g = 0.28) approached significance versus no‐text, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.65]. Disaggregating effects by whether the measures were standardized or researcher‐designed showed a significant both‐types effect, g = 0.45, 95% CI [0.02, 0.89] relative to no‐text. Disaggregating by whether outcomes were for word recognition or reading comprehension showed a positive both‐types effect for word recognition outcomes; data were inadequate to examine comprehension. A possible confounding effect of time spent reading was tested but was uncorrelated with the intervention effect. The both‐types finding suggests the possible value of varied reading experiences in intervention, but this analysis did not account for other factors that might be correlated with text type and the intervention effect. Furthermore, more comprehensive reporting about text types is important for replication and meta‐analytic review.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions

Pugh

Kearns

Hiebert³

2023

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the number of students reaching reading proficiency has not improved in the last 30 years. All this is occurring despite the substantial body of evidence that clearly indicates a pathway to providing the instruction that can help approximately 95% of students learn to read at or close to grade level (Goldberg & Goldenberg, 2022;Moats, 2020;Vaughn & Fletcher, 2020-2021.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting the science of reading to social justice: Introduction to the special section.

Burk¹,

Hasbrouck²

2023

School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of reading is the consensus of research conducted across multiple disciplines over many years that informs how children learn to read, the types of instructional practices that work best for most students, as well as how to address the needs of students who struggle to learn to read. This body of convergent evidence strongly indicates that approximately 95% of children can be taught to read at or approaching grade level, including students with dyslexia or other learning disabilities (Moats, 2020). Despite this compelling evidence, two-thirds of children cannot read proficiently in this country, and these data illustrate persistent gaps in reading proficiency across race, English learners, disability, and socioeconomic status (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). The implications of not learning to read proficiently are profound, including increased risk for school dropout, anxiety, depression, and low self-concept. All these outcomes are worse for our students of color and those from economically and culturally diverse groups. Ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn to read requires that the science of reading is implemented in all schools across the nation and that educators are equipped with the knowledge and skills to teach reading and address reading challenges. This article introduces a special section devoted to studies describing the ways in which the science of reading is bridging the practice to research gap with a social justice lens in an effort to advance and improve student, classroom, school-wide, or system-level outcomes for children and youth. Impact and ImplicationsThis introduction of the special section on connecting the science of reading to social justice describes what the science of reading is and summarizes how the articles included in the special section advance this perspective.

show abstract

The Circle Model

Jamil,

Siddiqi

2023

Public Education in Turbulent Times

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lessons Learned? Reading Wars, Reading First, and a Way Forward

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions

Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions

Connecting the science of reading to social justice: Introduction to the special section.

The Circle Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About