research based reading comprehension intervention programs

STARI Survey

Please share your experience with SERP.

Remote Learning Resources

for STARI classes unable to meet in person.

Strategic Adolescent Reading Intervention (STARI)

Stari is a literature-focused, tier ii intervention for students in grades 6-9 who read two or more years below grade level..

By the time students reach the middle grades, they are expected to read to learn instead of to learn to read . But for the significant number of students who can’t decode or fluently read more complex text, this shift spells trouble. In addition, older students (Grades 6-9) who need targeted, intensive reading instruction are still adolescent thinkers! They do not find typical remedial materials engaging. 

STARI is built around key research findings:

• Adolescent struggling readers need to work on both basic reading skills and the skills that underlie deep comprehension: academic language, perspective-taking, and critical reading.
• Texts need to engage students with issues in their lives and in the world.  
• Peer talk about text can develop reading engagement, perspective-taking, and critical reading.

Using research-based practices and highly engaging texts, STARI addresses gaps in fluency, decoding, reading stamina, and comprehension, aiming to move struggling students to higher levels of proficiency at the end of one year. STARI actively engages students in discussions of cognitively challenging content aligned to the Common Core and other 21st century standards.

STARI is intended to be a “double dose” intervention that should not take the place of core curriculum. We recommend that schools devote either 45-60 minutes, 5 days a week, or 90 minutes on an A-day/B-day schedule, to STARI.

STARI has helped me become a better reader because talking with others and hearing the opinions of others can help me learn more about what I'm reading about. 

Jasmine, 7th Grade Student

STARI has actually helped me to become a better reader because, at the beginning of the year, I thought I wasn't much of a fluent reader. I kept pausing in the middle of reading a sentence. But the more I read, the more practice it took ... I just became better.

AJ, 8th Grade Student

In some of the other intervention programs that I've taught there's really an emphasis on one component of language, so the emphasis might just be on fluency or might just be on decoding or just on comprehension. 

STARI gives me the opportunity to reach across to where a lot of the gaps are. In my student group, you have English language learners, students with IEPs, and students who have just been low-performing or plateauing in their reading skills.

I think that having that holistic approach to developing reading skills, including the discussion components, really makes a big difference. 

Ariadna Phillips-Santos, 8th Grade Teacher

Hear from more STARI teachers and students:

Why is a program like this necessary?

Middle school students who are several years behind in reading face enormous academic challenges. They can’t understand their subject area texts and have difficulty keeping up with class assignments. As the gap increases between their current reading skills and the literacy demands of content instruction, many fail key subjects. STARI is designed to close the comprehension gap between struggling readers and their on-level peers. STARI also aims to build reading confidence, stamina, and engagement, along with classroom discussion skills that are critical for success in secondary school and beyond.

What’s different about teaching adolescents to read?

Unlike younger students who can hone their reading skills with familiar content, adolescents are already immersed in more demanding contexts of literacy use. Middle school teachers appropriately expect that students will use literacy to acquire new information and reflect critically about what they read. By sixth grade, students are exposed to a wide range of genres beside simple narratives: historical exposition, scientific description, multiple forms of poetry and prose. A program for struggling adolescent readers needs to simultaneously address “basic” aspects of literacy: accurate decoding, fluent oral reading, literal comprehension, and the critical and disciplinary reading skills expected of older readers. Because struggling older readers have experienced years of underachievement, effective intervention also needs to address reading motivation, confidence, and engagement.

How is STARI different from other reading interventions?

Adolescent reading interventions have often shown only modest gains, especially for those students who are furthest behind in reading (Somers et al., 2010; Vaughn, Cirino, Wanzek et al., 2010). Interventions that primarily target basic skills may not improve adolescents’ performance with more challenging literacy tasks such as finding text-based evidence for a claim or integrating information across different texts.

STARI addresses reading motivation and engagement through high-interest novels and nonfiction that challenge students to think more deeply about issues in their lives. In STARI, attention to basic skills is integrated with activities involving talking, reasoning, and writing about complex issues. STARI’s classroom formats, including many opportunities for peer exchanges, tap into adolescents’ social motivations to talk about ideas they care about.

STARI is also different from many reading interventions in that discussion and debate are fundamental to the curriculum. Our belief is that when students discuss and debate the ideas in the text, they understand the text more deeply. Discussion and debate are built into most components of the curriculum, from partners discussing fluency passages to more formal debates about unit themes. Additionally, STARI is an ELA focused curriculum in which skills practice is integrated into comprehension activities. Also, the different components connect with one another in a purposeful way. For example, the fluency practice passages build background knowledge and provide information that can be used to better understand and give context to other texts in each unit.

Capti Assess with ETS® ReadBasix™

Capti Assess with ETS ReadBasix is a 45-60-minute web-based assessment appropriate for diagnosing the reading skills of students in grades 3 through 12. This assessment (formerly the RISE) was developed to help identify students who struggle with basic reading skills and provide detailed information to teachers about the nature of their struggles.

Development of STARI was led by Lowry Hemphill (Wheelock College) through a SERP collaboration with Harvard University and four Massachusetts school districts. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305F100026 to the Strategic Education Research Partnership as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. The STARI Team

Strategic Education Research Partnership

SERP Institute

1100 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20036

SERP Studio

2744 East 11th Street 

Oakland, CA 94601

[email protected]

(202) 223-8555

Registered 501(c)(3). EIN: 30-0231116

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(9); 2021 Sep

Evidence-based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-analysis

Associated data.

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) has been growing worldwide. ELLs are at risk for reading disabilities due to dual difficulties with linguistic and cultural factors. This raises the need for finding practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve their literacy development and English reading skills. The purpose of this study is to examine the evidence-based reading interventions for English Language Learners to identify the components that create the most effective and efficient interventions. This article reviewed literature published between January 2008 and March 2018 that examined the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. We analyzed the effect sizes of reading intervention programs for ELLs and explored the variables that affect reading interventions using a multilevel meta-analysis. We examined moderator variables such as student-related variables (grades, exceptionality, SES), measurement-related variables (standardization, reliability), intervention-related variables (contents of interventions, intervention types), and implementation-related variables (instructor, group size). The results showed medium effect sizes for interventions targeting basic reading skills for ELLs. Medium-size group interventions and strategy-embedded interventions were more important for ELLs who were at risk for reading disabilities. These findings suggested that we should consider the reading problems of ELLs and apply the Tier 2 approach for ELLs with reading problems.

English language learners, Evidenced-based intervention, Meta-analysis, Reading.

1. Introduction

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of quality education for learners who study in a language other than their native language ( Estrella et al., 2018 ; Ludwig et al., 2019 ). As cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversification takes place globally, the number of students studying a second language different from their native language is also increasing worldwide. In the United States, nearly 5 million learners who are not native speakers of English are currently attending public schools, and this figure has increased significantly over the past decade ( NCES, 2016 ). As the number of children whose native language is not English increased, the need for educational support also increased. Furthermore, the implementation of NCLB policy emphasizes the need for quality education for all students included in all schools. Accordingly, NCLB has emerged as a critical policy for learners to study in their second language. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that non-native English speakers receive appropriate education due to NCLB, which has not only increased the demand for education but also led to the practice of enhanced education for learners whose English is not their native language.

ELLs (English language learners) refer to the education provided for learners whose native language is not English in English-speaking countries ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2021 ). The education provided to these ELLs is called ESL (English as a second language), ESOL (English to speakers of other languages), EFL (English as a foreign language), and so on. Each term is adopted differently depending on the policy, purpose, and status of operation of the state and/or school district. While a variety of terms have been suggested, this paper uses the term ‘ELLs’ to refer to learners who are not native speakers of English and uses the terms ‘the English education program’ and the ‘ELL program’ to refer to the English education program provided to ELLs.

To ensure quality education, students identified as ELLs can participate in supportive programs to improve their English skills. These ELL programs can be broadly divided into two methods: “pull-out” and “push-in” ( Honigsfeld, 2009 ). In the pull-out program, students are taken to a specific space other than the classroom at regular class time and are separately taught English. In the push-in program, the ELL teacher joins the mainstream ELLs’ classroom and assists them during class time. Through these educational supports, ELLs are required to achieve not only English language improvements addressed in Title III of NCLB but also language art achievements appropriate to their grade level addressed in Title I of NCLB. ELLs are expected to achieve the same level of academic achievement as students of the same grade level, as well as comparable language skills.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on the achievement and learning status of ELLs ( Ludwig, 2017 ; Soland and Sandilos, 2020 ). These studies revealed that despite the intensive, high-quality education support for ELLs, they encounter difficulties learning and academic achievement. The National Reading Achievement Test (NAEP) results show that the achievement gap between non-ELLs and ELLs is steadily expanding in the areas of both mathematics and reading ( Polat et al., 2016 ). Ultimately, ELLs are reported to have the highest risk of dropping out of school ( Sheng et al., 2011 ). These difficulties are not limited to early school age. Fry (2007) reported that the results from a national standardized test of 8th-grade students found that ELLs performed lower than white students in both reading and math. Callahan and Shifrer (2016) analyzed data from a nationally representative educational longitudinal study in 2002 and found that, despite taking into account language, socio-demographic and academic factors, ELLs still have a large gap in high school academic achievement. Additionally, research has suggested that ELLs are less likely to participate in higher education institutions compared to non-ELL counterparts ( Cook, 2015 ; Kanno and Cromley, 2015 ).

Factors found to influence the difficulties of ELLs in learning have been explored in several studies ( Dussling, 2018 ; Thompson and von Gillern, 2020 ; Yousefi and Bria, 2018 ). There are two main reasons for these difficulties. First, ELLs face many challenges in learning a new language by following the academic content required in the school year ( American Youth Policy Forum, 2009 ). Moreover, language is an area that is influenced by sociocultural factors, and learning academic contents such as English language art and math are also influenced by sociocultural elements and different cultural backgrounds, which affects the achievement of ELLs in school ( Chen et al., 2012 ; Orosco, 2010 ). Second, it is reported that the heterogeneity of ELLs makes it challenging to formulate instructional strategies and provide adequate education for them. Due to the heterogeneous traits in the linguistic and cultural aspects of the ELL group, there are limitations in specifying and guiding traits. Therefore, properly reflecting their characteristics is difficult.

The difficulties for ELLs in academic achievement raise the necessity for searching practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve English language and academic achievement, including ELLs' English language art achievement. These needs and demands led to the conduct of various studies that analyze the difficulties of ELLs. Over the past decade, these studies have provided important information on education for ELLs. The main themes of the studies are difficulties in academic achievement and interventions for ELLs, including reading ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Roth, 2015 ; Shamir et al., 2018 ; Tam and Heng, 2016 ), writing ( Daugherty, 2015 ; Hong, 2018 ; Lin, 2015 ; nullP ) or both reading and math ( Dearing et al., 2016 ; Shamir et al., 2016 ). The influences of teachers on children's guidance ( Kim, 2017 ; Daniel and Pray, 2017 ; Téllez and Manthey, 2015 ; Wasseell, Hawrylak, Scantlebuty, 2017 ) and the influences of family members ( Johnson and Johnson, 2016 ; Walker, Research on 2017 ) are also examined.

Reading is known to function as an important predictor of success not only in English language art itself but also in overall school life ( Guo et al., 2015 ). This is because reading is conducted throughout the school years, as most of the activities students perform in school are related to reading. Furthermore, reading is considered one of the major fundamental skills in modern society because it has a strong relationship with academic and vocational success beyond school-based learning ( Lesnick et al., 2010 ). In particular, for ELLs, language is one of the innate barriers; thereafter, reading is one of the most common and prominent difficulties in that it is not done in their native language ( Rawian and Mokhtar, 2017 ; Snyder et al., 2017 ). In this respect, several studies have investigated reading for ELLs. These studies explore effective interventions and strategies ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Mendoza, 2016 ; Meredith, 2017 ; Reid and Heck, 2017 ) and suggest reading development models or predictors for reading success ( Boyer, 2017 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Rubin, 2016 ). For these individual studies to provide appropriate guidance to field practitioners and desirable suggestions for future research, aggregation of the overall related studies, not only of the individual study, and research reflections based on them are required. Specifically, meta-analysis can be an appropriate research method. Through meta-analysis, we can derive conclusions from previous studies and review them comprehensively. Furthermore, meta-analysis can ultimately contribute to policymakers and decision-makers making appropriate decisions for rational strategies and policymaking.

Although extensive research has been carried out on the difficulties of ELLs and how to support them, a sufficiently comprehensive meta-analysis of these studies has not been carried out. Some studies have focused on specific interventions, such as morphological interventions ( Goodwin and Ahn, 2013 ), peer-mediated learning ( Cole, 2014 ), and video game-based instruction ( Thompson and von Gillern ). Ludwig, Guo, and Georgiou (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. However, they divided reading-related variables into “reading accuracy”, “reading fluency”, and “reading comprehension” and examined the effectiveness of the reading-related attributes in each of the variables. Therefore, the study has limitations for exploring the various aspects of reading and their effectiveness for reading interventions.

Individual studies have their characteristics and significance. However, for individual studies to be more widely adopted in the field and to be a powerful source for future research, it is necessary to analyze these individual studies more comprehensively. Meta-analysis reviews past studies related to the topic by 'integrating' previous studies, analyzes and evaluates them through 'critical analysis', provides implications to the field, and gives rise to intellectual stimulation to future studies by ‘identifying issues’ ( Cooper et al., 2019 ). Through this, meta-analysis can be a useful tool for diagnosing the past where relevant research has been conducted, taking appropriate treatment for the present, and providing intellectual stimulation for future studies.

Therefore, the purposes of this study are to examine evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs presented in the literature to analyze their effects and to identify the actual and specific components for creating the most effective and efficient intervention for ELLs. The findings of this study make a major contribution to research on ELLs by demonstrating the implications for the field and future study.

2.1. Selection of studies

A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles on ELL reading interventions published between January 2008 and March 2018 was conducted. According to the general steps of a meta-analysis, data related to reading interventions for English language learners were collected as follows. First, educational and psychological publication databases, such as Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.co.kr ), ERIC ( https://eric.ed.gov/ ), ELSEVIER ( http://www.elsevier.com ), and Springer ( https://www.springer.com/gp ) were used to find the articles to be analyzed using the search terms “ELLs,” ESL,” “Reading,” “Second language education,” “Effectiveness,” and “Intervention” separately and in combination with each other. We reviewed the results of the web-based search for articles and included all relevant articles on the preliminary list. We selected the final list of the articles to be analyzed by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to the preliminary list of articles. Studies were included in the final list based on three primary criteria. First, each study should evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based reading intervention using an experimental or quasi-experimental group design. In this process, single case, qualitative, and/or descriptive studies for ELLs were excluded from the analysis. Second, we included all types of reading-related interventions (i.e., phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension). Third, each study needed to report data in a statistical format to calculate an effect size. Fourth, we only included studies whose subjects were in grades K-12. The preliminary list had 75 articles, but since some of these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria, we excluded them from the final list for analysis. In total, this meta-analysis included 28 studies with 234 effect sizes (see Figure 1 ).

Prisma flow diagram.

2.2. Data analysis

2.2.1. coding procedure.

To identify the relevant components of the evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs, we developed an extensive coding document. Our interest was in synthesizing the effect sizes and finding the variables that affect the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. The code sheet was made based on a code sheet used in Vaughn et al. (2003) and Wanzek et al. (2010) . All studies were coded for the following: (a) study characteristics, including general information about the study, (b) student-related variables, (c) intervention-related variables, (d) implementation-related variables, (e) measurement-related variables, and (f) quantitative data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Within the study characteristics category, we coded the researchers’ names, publication year, and title from each study to identify the general information about each study. For the student-related variables, mean age, grade level(s), number of participants, number of males, number of females, sampling method, exceptionality type (reading ability level), identification criteria in case of learning disabilities, race/ethnicity, and SES were coded. We divided grade level(s) into lower elementary (K-2), upper elementary (3–5), and secondary (6–12). When students with learning disabilities participated in the study, we coded the identification criteria reported in the study. For race/ethnicity, we coded white, Hispanic, black, Asian, and others. Within intervention-related variables, we coded for the title of the intervention, the key instructional components of the intervention, the type of intervention, and the reading components of the intervention. The reading components coded were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and others. If an intervention contained multiple reading components, all reading components included in the intervention were coded. Fourth, within implementation-related variables, we coded group size, duration of the intervention (weeks), the total number of sessions, frequency of sessions per week, length of each session (minutes), personnel who provided the intervention (i.e., teacher, researchers, other), and the setting. Fifth, in measurement-related variables, we coded the title of the measurement, reliability coefficient, validity coefficient, type of measurement, type of reliability, and type of validity. We also coded quantitative data such as the pre- and posttest means, the pre- and posttest standard deviations, and the number of participants in the pre- and posttests for both the treatment and control groups. These coding variables are defined in Table 1 . The research background and sample information are in Appendix 1 .

Table 1

Coding variables.

2.2.2. Coding reliability

The included articles were coded according to the coding procedure described above. Two researchers coded each study separately and reached 91% agreement. Afterward, the researchers reviewed and discussed the differences to resolve the initial disagreements.

2.2.3. Data analysis

First, we calculated 234 effect sizes from the interventions included in the 28 studies. The average effect size was calculated using Cohen's d formula. In addition, we conducted a two-level meta-analysis through multilevel hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using the HLM 6.0 interactive mode statistical program to analyze the computed effect sizes and find the predictors that affect the effect sizes of reading interventions. HLM is appropriate to quantitatively obtain both overall summary statistics and quantification of the variability in the effectiveness of interventions across studies as a means for accessing the generalizability of findings. Moreover, HLM easily incorporates the overall mean effect size using the unconditional model, and HLM is useful to explain variability in the effectiveness of interventions between studies in the conditional model. The aim of the current study is to provide a broad overview of interventions for ELLs. To achieve this aim, we conducted an unconditional model for overall mean effect size and conducted a conditional model to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In regard to variables related to the effectiveness of interventions, we conducted a conditional model with student-related, measurement-related, intervention-related, and implementation-related variables. In the case of quantitative meta-analyses, it is assumed that observations are independent of one another ( How and de Leeuw, 2003 ). However, this assumption is usually not applied in social studies if observations are clustered within larger groups ( Bowman, 2003 ) because each effect size within a study might not be homogeneous ( Beretvas and Pastor, 2003 ). Thus, a two-level multilevel meta-analysis using a mixed-effect model was employed because multiple effect sizes are provided within a single education study. To calculate effect size (ES) estimates using Cohen's d, we use the following equation [1]:

The pooled standard deviation, SD pooled , is defined as

In HLM, the unconditional model can be implemented to identify the overall effect size across all estimates and to test for homogeneity. If an assumption of homogeneity is rejected by an insignificant chi-square coefficient in the unconditional model, this means that there are differences within and/or between studies. This assumption must go to the next step to find moderators that influence effect sizes. This step is called a level two model or a conditional model. A conditional model is conducted to investigate the extent of the influence of the included variables.

The level one model (unconditional model) was expressed as [3], and the level two model (the conditional model was expressed as [4].

In equation (3) , δ j represents the mean effect size value for study j, and e j is the within-study error term assumed to be theoretically normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of V j . In the level two model equation [4], γ 0 represents the overall mean effect size for the population, and u j represents the sampling variability between studies presumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance τ .

Regarding publication bias, we looked at the funnel plot with the 'funnel()' command of the metafor R package ( Viechtbauer, 2010 ), and to verify this more statistically, we used the dmetar R package ( Harrer et al., 2019 ). Egger's regression test ( Egger et al., 1997 ) was conducted using the 'eggers.test()' command to review publication bias. Egger's regression analysis showed that there was a significant publication error (t = 3.977, 95% CI [0.89–2.54], p < .001). To correct this, a trim-and-fill technique ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ) was used. As a result, the total effect size corrected for publication bias was also calculated. The funnel plot is shown in [ Figure 2 ].

Funnel plot.

We analyzed 28 studies to identify influential variables that count for reading interventions for ELLs. Before performing the multilevel meta-analysis, the effect size of 28 studies was analyzed by traditional meta-analysis. The forest plots for the individual effect sizes of 28 studies are shown in Appendix 2. We present our findings with our research questions as an organizational framework. First, we showed an unconditional model for finding the overall mean effect size. Then, we described the variables that influenced the effect size of reading interventions for ELLs using a conditional model.

3.1. Unconditional model

An unconditional model of the meta-analysis was tested first. In the analysis, restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used. This analysis was conducted to confirm the overall mean effect size and to examine the variability among all samples. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Table 2

Results of the unconditional model analysis.

∗∗∗ p < 0.001, df: degree of freedom.

The intercept coefficient in the fixed model is the overall mean effect size from 234 effect sizes. This means that the effect of reading intervention for English language learners is medium based on Cohen's d. Cohen's d is generally interpreted as small d = 0.2, medium d = 0.5 and large d = 0.8. The variance component indicates the variability among samples. The estimate was 0.589 and remained significant (χ 2 = 1245.90, p < . 001). This statistical significance means that moderator analysis with dominant predictors in a model is required to explore the source of variability.

3.2. Conditional model

Moderator analysis using the conditional model was expected to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In this study, the moderator analysis was administered by nine critical variable categories: students’ grade, exceptionality, SES, reading area, standardized test, test reliability, intervention type, instructor, and group size. Variables in each category were coded by dummy coding. Dummy coding was used to identify the difference in dependent variables between the categories of independent variables. For example, we used four dummy variables to capture the five dimensions. The parameter estimates capture the differences in effect sizes between the groups that are coded 1 and a reference group that is coded 0. From a mathematical perspective, it does not matter which categorical variable is used as the referenced group ( Frey, 2018 ). We labeled one variable in each category as a reference group to make the interpretation of the results easier. We used an asterisk mark to denote the reference group for each category; if a word has an asterisk next to it, this indicates that it is the reference group for that category.

• 1) Student-related variables

The results of the conditional meta-analysis for students' grade variables are presented in Table 3 . In Table 3 , the significant coefficients mean that mean effect sizes are significantly larger for studies in reference conditions. For student grades, upper elementary students showed significantly larger mean effect sizes than secondary students (2.720, p = 0.000), but preschool students showed significantly lower mean effect sizes than secondary students (-0.103, p = 0.019). The Q statistic was significant for students’ grades ( Q = 27.20, p < 0.001) (see Table 4 ).

Table 3

Results of the moderator analysis for student grade.

df: degree of freedom.

Table 4

Results of the moderator analysis for exceptionality.

For the student-related variables, students with low achievement showed significantly larger mean effect sizes scores than general students (0.707, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. The Q statistic was significant for students’ exceptionality ( Q = 0.0278, p < 0.001).

Table 5 shows that low and low-middle SES was not significantly different from students with no information about SES (0.055, p = 0.666). Moreover, students with middle and upper SES did not have significantly smaller effect sizes than students with nonresponse (-0.379, p = 0.444). The Q statistic was significant for students’ SES ( Q = 68.50, p < 0.001).

Table 5

Results of the moderator analysis for SES.

• 2) Measurement-related variables

Table 6 shows the results of the moderator analysis for measurement types. The coefficient for the standardized measurement-related variable was not significant. The Q statistic was significant for the standardization of measurement tools ( Q = 5.28, p < 0.001).

Table 6

Results of the moderator analysis for standardization of measurement tools.

Table 7 shows the results of the moderator analysis for the reliability of the measurement tools. The coefficient for the measurement reliability-related variable was significant (0.409, p = 0.003), which means that the effect sizes of measurements that reported reliability (ES = 0.770) were significantly larger than the effect sizes of measurements that had information about reliability (ES = 0.361). The Q statistic was significant for the reliability of the measurement tools ( Q = 5.82, p < 0.001) (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Results of the moderator analysis for reliability.

Table 8

Results of the moderator analysis for content of the intervention.

• 3) Intervention-related variables

The content of the intervention was divided into phonological awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and other areas. Studies measured other areas that functioned as a reference group. For the measurement area, all reading areas were significantly larger than other areas. Reading fluency (1.150, p = 0.001), reading comprehension (0.971, p = 0.000) and listening comprehension (0.834, p = 0.002) were significantly larger than those in the other areas. However, phonological awareness and vocabulary were significantly larger than other areas but lower than reading fluency, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension (0.528, p = 0.013; 0.442, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for the content of the intervention ( Q = 24.005, p < 0.001).

For intervention types, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, and computer-based learning were compared to other methods, which were fixed as a reference group. Table 9 shows that strategy instruction was significantly larger than other methods in mean effect sizes (0.523, p = 0.001). However, studies that applied peer tutoring and computer-based learning showed lower than other methods, but these differences were not statistically significant (-0.113, p = 0.736; -0114, p = 0.743). The Q statistic was significant for intervention types ( Q = 73.343, p < 0.001).

Table 9

Results of the moderator analysis for intervention types.

• 4) Implementation-related variables

For instructor-related variables, other instructor-delivered instructions were assigned as a reference group. Table 10 shows that the teacher and researcher groups showed significantly larger than the other instructors. Moreover, the teacher group showed larger than the researcher group (0.909, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for instructor-related variables ( Q = 14.024, p < 0.001).

Table 10

Results of the moderator analysis for instructor.

For group size, mixed groups were fixed as a reference group. Group size variables were divided into a small group (1 or more and 5 or less), a middle group (6 or more and 15 or less), and a large group or class size (16 or more). Table 11 shows that the middle group (6 or more and 15 or less) and the small group (1 or more and 5 or less) were significantly larger than the mixed group (0.881, p = 0.000; 0.451, p = 0.006). However, the difference between the large group and the mixed group was not significant (0.120, p = 0.434). The Q statistic was significant for group size variables ( Q = 17.756, p < 0.001).

Table 11

Results of the moderator analysis for group size.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the effects of reading interventions for ELLs and to identify research-based characteristics of effective reading interventions for enhancing their reading ability. To achieve this goal, this study tried to determine the answers to two research questions. What is the estimated mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs in K-12? To what extent do student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables have effects on improving the reading ability of ELLs in K-12? Therefore, our study was limited to recent K-12 intervention studies published between January 2008 and March 2018 that included phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension as intervention components and outcome measures. A total of 28 studies were identified and analyzed. To inquiry the two main research questions, a two-level meta-analysis was employed in this study. For the first research question, the unconditional model of HLM was conducted to investigate the mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs. The conditional model of HLM was conducted to determine which variables have significant effects on reading interventions for ELLs. Below, we briefly summarized the results of this study and described the significant factors that seem to influence intervention effectiveness. These findings could provide a better understanding of ELLs and support implications for the development of reading interventions for ELLs.

4.1. Effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs

The first primary finding from this meta-analysis is that ELLs can improve their reading ability when provided appropriate reading interventions. Our findings indicated that the overall mean effect size of reading interventions of ELLs yielded an effect size of 0.653, which indicates a medium level of effect. From this result, we can conclude that the appropriate reading interventions generally have impacts on reading outcomes for ELLs in K-12. This is consistent with prior syntheses reporting positive effects of reading interventions for ELLs ( Vaughn et al., 2006 ; Abraham, 2008 ).

Effect size information is important to understand the real effects of the intervention. Therefore, this finding indicated that supplementary reading interventions for ELLs will be developed and implemented. This finding also showed that states are required to develop a set of high-quality reading interventions for ELLs. Language interventions for ELLs have become one of the most important issues in the U.S. Increasing numbers of children in U.S. schools have come from homes in which English is not the primary language spoken. NCES (2016) showed that 4.9 million students, or 9.6% of public school students, were identified as ELLs, which was higher than the 3.8 million students, or 8.1%, identified in 2000 ( NCES, 2016 ). While many students of immigrant families succeed in their academic areas, too many do not. Some ELLs lag far behind native English speakers in the school because of the strong effect of language factors on the instruction or assessment. Although English is not their native language, ELLs should learn educational content in English. This leads to huge inequity in public schools. Thus, improving the English language and literacy skills of ELLs is a major concern for educational policymakers. This finding can support practitioners’ efforts and investments in developing appropriate language interventions for ELLs.

4.2. The effects of moderating variables

The second primary finding of this meta-analysis relates to four variable categories: student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables. Effective instruction cannot be designed by considering one factor. The quality of instruction is the product of many factors, including class size, the type of instructions, and other resources. This finding showed which factors affected the effectiveness of reading interventions. Specifically, we found that the variables that proved to have significant effects on reading outcomes of ELLs were as follows: upper elementary students, reliable measurement tools, reading and listening comprehension-related interventions, strategy instruction, and the middle group consisting of 6 or more and 15 or less. Teachers and practitioners in the field may choose to adopt these findings into their practices. ELL teachers may design their instruction as strategy-embedded instruction in middle-sized groups.

We found that grades accounted for significant variability in an intervention's effectiveness. Specifically, we found that reading interventions were substantially more effective when used with upper elementary students than secondary students. This means that the magnitude of an intervention's effectiveness changed depending on when ELLs received reading interventions. Specifically, the larger effect sizes on upper elementary students than secondary schools showed the importance of early interventions to improve ELLs' language abilities. Students who experience early reading difficulty often continue to experience failure in later grades. ELLs, or students whose primary language is other than English and are learning English as a second language, often experience particular challenges in developing reading skills in the early grades. According to Kieffer (2010) , substantial proportions of ELLs and native English speakers showed reading difficulties that emerged in the upper elementary and middle school grades even though they succeeded in learning to read in the primary grades.

Regarding students’ English proficiency and academic achievement, there was no statistically significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. Given the heterogeneity of the English language learner population, interventions that may be effective for one group of English language learners may not be effective with others ( August and Shanahan, 2006 ). This result is similar to the results achieved by Lovett et al. (2008) . Lovett et al. (2008) showed that there were no differences between ELLs and their peers who spoke English as a first language in reading intervention outcomes or growth intervention. This finding suggests that systematic and explicit reading interventions are effective for readers regardless of their primary language.

For students' socioeconomic status (SES), there was no significant difference between the low-middle group and the nonresponse group. However, we cannot find that students' SES is critical for implementing reading interventions. Low SES is known to increase the risk of reading difficulties because of the limited access to a variety of resources that support reading development and academic achievement ( Kieffer, 2010 ). Many ELLs attend schools with high percentages of students living in poverty ( Vaughn et al., 2009 ). These schools are less likely to have adequate funds and resources and to provide appropriate support for academic achievement ( Donovan and Cross, 2002 ). Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) highlighted multiple and complex factors that contribute to poor reading outcomes in school, including a lack of qualified teachers and students who come from poverty. Although this study cannot determine the relationship between the effectiveness of reading interventions and the SES of students, more studies are needed. In addition, these results related to students’ characteristics showed that practitioners and teachers can consider for whom to implement some interventions. Researchers should provide a greater specification of the student samples because this information will be particularly critical for English language learners.

Although many of the studies measured a variety of outcomes across all areas of reading, interventions that focused on improving reading comprehension and listening comprehension obtained better effects than other reading outcomes. This result is similar to those discussed in previous findings ( Wanzek and Roberts, 2012 ; Carrier, 2003 ).

With regard to effective intervention types, the findings indicated that strategy instruction was statistically significant for improving the reading skills of ELLs. However, computer-based interventions, which are frequently used for reading instruction for ELLs in recent years, showed lower effect sizes than mixed interventions. Strategy instructions are known as one of the effective reading interventions for ELLs ( Proctor et al., 2007 ; Begeny et al., 2012 ; Olson and Land, 2007 ; Vaughn et al., 2006 ). These strategies included activating background knowledge, clarifying vocabulary meaning, and expressing visuals and gestures for understanding after reading. Some studies have shown that computer-based interventions are effective for ELLs ( White and Gillard, 2011 ; Macaruso and Rodman, 2011 ), but this study does not. Therefore, there is little agreement in the research literature on how to effectively teach reading to ELLs ( Gersten and Baker, 2000 ). Continued research efforts must specify how best to provide intervention for ELLs.

With respect to the implementation of the intervention, teachers and researchers as instructors would produce stronger effects than other instructors. In this study, multiple studies showed that various instructors taught ELLs, including teachers, graduate students, and researchers. The professional development of instructors is more important than that of those who taught ELLs. This finding is consistent with Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) . They also did not find differences between researcher-delivered interventions and school personnel-delivered interventions. Continuing professional development should build on the preservice education of teachers, strengthen teaching skills, increase teacher knowledge of the reading process, and facilitate the integration of newer research on reading into the teaching practices of classroom teachers ( Snow et al., 1998 ). Overall, professional development is the key factor in strengthening the reading skills of ELLs.

This study showed that medium-sized groups of 6 or more and 15 or less had larger effect sizes than the mixed groups. In addition, the medium-sized group showed a larger effect size than the small group of 5 or less. This finding showed that a multi-tiered reading system should be needed in the general classroom. This finding is linked to the fact that the reaction to intervention (RTI) approach is more effective for ELLs. Linan-Thompson et al. (2007) pointed out that RTI offers a promising alternative for reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education by identifying students at risk early and providing preventive instruction to accelerate progress. Regarding interventions for ELLs who are struggling with or at risk for reading difficulties, Ross and Begeny (2011) compared the effectiveness between small group interventions and implementing the intervention in a 1/1 context for ELLs. They showed that nearly all students benefitted from the 1/1 intervention, and some students benefitted from the small group intervention. This finding is commensurate with a previous study investigating the comparative differences between group sizes and suggests research-based support for the introduction of the RTI approach.

However, most implementation-related variables, including duration of intervention, the total number of sessions, frequency per week, length of each session, settings, and instructor, did not have any significant effect on the reading ability of ELLs. That is, ELLs are able to achieve their reading improvement regardless of the duration of intervention, where they received the reading intervention, and who taught them. This finding is similar to those discussed by Snyder et al. (2017) . They also synthesized the related interventions for ELLs and showed that the length of intervention did not seem to be directly associated with overall effect sizes for reading outcomes. This finding is also the same as recent research on intervention duration with native English speakers ( Wanzek et al., 2013 ). Wanzek and colleagues examined the relationship between student outcomes and hours of intervention in their meta-analysis. The findings showed no significant differences in student outcomes based on the number of intervention hours. Elbaum et al. (2000) stated that the intensity of the interventions is most important for effectiveness. Our results somewhat support these researchers’ opinions, but we cannot be certain that a brief intervention would have the same overall effect on reading outcomes as a year-long intervention. Thus, we should consider the intervention intensity, such as student attendance at the sessions, with the duration of the intervention.

4.3. Implications for practice and for research

The most effective and efficient education refers to education that is made up in the right ways, that includes proper content, and that is delivered on time so that the students can benefit the most. To implement this, research to identify a particular framework based on the synthesis of research results through meta-analysis, such as this study, must be conducted. Furthermore, the implications based on the results must be deeply considered. In this respect, important implications for the practice and research of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on enhancing reading competence for ELLs of this study are as follows.

First, reading interventions for ELLs are expected to be the most efficient when conducted on a medium-sized group of 6–15 students. This indicates that implementing reading interventions for ELLs requires a specially designed group-scale configuration rather than simply a class-wide or one-to-one configuration. Second, the implementation of reading interventions for ELLs is most effective when conducted for older elementary school students. This is in contrast to Morgan and Sideridis (2006) , who demonstrated the characteristics of students with learning disabilities using multilevel meta-analysis and showed that age groups were irrelevant in the effect size of reading interventions for students with learning disabilities. Therefore, it can be seen that the ELLs group, unlike the learning disability group, the students of which have reading difficulty due to their disabilities, is in the normal development process but has reading difficulty due to linguistic differences. Accordingly, it can be seen that the senior year of elementary school, in which a student has been exposed to the academic environment for a sufficiently long time and language is sufficiently developed, is the appropriate time for learning English for ELLs. Third, effective reading interventions for ELLs should be performed with a strategy-embedded instruction program. This is based on the fact that strategic instructions are effective for vocabulary or concepts in unfamiliar languages ( Carlo et al., 2005 ; Chaaya and Ghosn, 2010 ).

The above implications require the implementation of Tier 2 interventions for reading interventions for ELLs in practice. In Tier 2 interventions, students can participate in more intensive learning through specially designed interventions based on their personal needs ( Ortiz et al., 2011 ). In other words, in policymaking and administrative decision-making, intensive education programs for ELLs who have been exposed to the academic environment for a certain period but still have reading difficulties, including having achievements that fall short of the expected level, are needed.

Considering further applications, these findings could guide practitioners and policymakers to develop effective evidence-based reading programs or policies. The significant variables in this study can be considered to develop new programs for ELLs.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

• Abraham L.B. Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: a meta-analysis. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2008; 21 (3):199–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D., Shanahan T. In: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. August D., Shanahan T., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 2006. Synthesis: instruction and professional development; pp. 351–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny J.C., Ross S.G., Greene D.J., Mitchell R.C., Whitehouse M.H. Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: a preliminary evaluation. J. Behav. Educ. 2012; 21 (2):134–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beretvas S.N., Pastor D.A. Using mixed-effects models in reliability generalization studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003; 63 (1):75–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman N.A. Effect sizes and statistical methods for meta-analysis in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 2003; 53 :375–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer K. The Relationship Between Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in Third Grade Students Who Are English Language Learners and Reading Below Grade Level. 2017. (Masters Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlo M.S., August D., Snow C.E. Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. Teach. Learn. Vocabul.: Bring. Res. Pract. 2005:137–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrier K.A. Improving high school English language learners' second language listening through strategy instruction. Biling. Res. J. 2003; 27 (3):383–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaaya D., Ghosn I.K. Supporting young second language learners reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in Lebanon. Educ. Res. Rev. 2010; 5 (6):329–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Ramirez G., Luo Y.C., Geva E., Ku Y.M. Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish-and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Read. Writ. 2012; 25 (8):1991–2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M.W. Speaking to read: meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English language learners. J. Lit. Res. 2014; 46 (3):358–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel S.M., Pray L. Learning to teach English language learners: a study of elementary school teachers’ sense-making in an ELL endorsement program. Tesol Q. 2017; 51 (4):787–819. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daugherty J.L. 2015. Assessment of ELL Written Language Progress in Designated ESL Noncredit Courses at the Community College Level. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dearing E., Walsh M.E., Sibley E., Lee-St. John T., Foley C., Raczek A.E. Can community and school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-poverty schools? Child Dev. 2016; 87 (3):883–897. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan M.S., Cross C.T. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2002. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Lockbox 285, 20055. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dussling T.M. Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners. Liter. Res. Instr. 2018; 57 (3):276–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval S., Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 (2):455–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M., Smith G.D., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997; 315 (7109):629–634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbaum B., Vaughn S., Tejero Hughes M., Watson Moody S. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 92 (4):605–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Estrella G., Au J., Jaeggi S.M., Collins P. Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review. AERA Open. 2018; 4 (2) 2332858418767402. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey B.B. Sage Publications; 2018. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R., Baker S. What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Except. Child. 2000; 66 (4):454–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Y., Sun S., Breit-Smith A., Morrison F.J., Connor C.M. Behavioral engagement and reading achievement in elementary-school-age children: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015; 107 (2):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin A.P., Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Sci. Stud. Read. 2013; 17 (4):257–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrer M., Cuijpers P., Furukawa T.A., Ebert D.D. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-On guide. from. 2019. https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong H. Exploring the role of intertextuality in promoting young ELL children’s poetry writing and learning: a discourse analytic approach. Classr. Discourse. 2018; 9 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Honigsfeld A. ELL programs: not ‘one size fits all’ Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2009; 45 (4):166–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• How J.J., de Leeuw E.D. In: Multilevel Modeling: Methodological Advances, Issues, and Applications. Reise S.P., Duan N., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. Multilevle model for meta-analysis; pp. 90–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson E.J., Johnson A.B. Enhancing academic investment through home-school connections and building on ELL students' scholastic funds of knowledge. J. Lang. Literacy Educ. 2016; 12 (1):104–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer M.J. Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educ. Res. 2010; 39 (6):484–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. Global Conference on Education and Research (GLOCER 2017) 2017. May). Influence of ELL instructor’s culturally responsive attitude on newly arrived adolescent ELL students’ academic achievement; pp. 239–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirnan J., Ventresco N.E., Gardner T. The impact of a therapy dog program on children’s reading: follow-up and extension to ELL students. Early Child. Educ. J. 2018; 46 (1):103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesnick J., Goerge R., Smithgall C., Gwynne J. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; Chicago, IL: 2010. Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is it Related to High School Performance and College Enrollment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S.M. A study of ELL students' writing difficulties: a call for culturally, linguistically, and psychologically responsive teaching. Coll. Student J. 2015; 49 (2):237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P.T., Vaughn S. Determining English language learners' response to intervention: questions and some answers. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2007; 30 (3):185–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu S., Wang J. Reading cooperatively or independently? Study on ELL student reading development. Read. Matrix: Int. Online J. 2015; 15 (1):102–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett M.W., De Palma M., Frijters J., Steinbach K., Temple M., Benson N., Lacerenza L. Interventions for reading difficulties: a comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008; 41 (4):333–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C. University of Alberta; Canada: 2017. The Effects of Reading Interventions on the Word-Reading Performance of English Language Learners: A Meta-Analysis (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C., Guo K., Georgiou G.K. Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019; 52 (3):220–231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaruso P., Rodman A. Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English language learners. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):301–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendoza S. Reading strategies to support home-to-school connections used by teachers of English language learners. J. English Lang. Teach. 2016; 6 (4):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith D.C. Trevecca Nazarene University; 2017. Relationships Among Utilization of an Online Differentiated Reading Program, ELL Student Literacy Outcomes, and Teacher Attitudes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan P.L., Sideridis G.D. Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: a multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2006; 21 (4):191–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2021. English Language Learners in Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson C.B., Land R. A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Res. Teach. Engl. 2007:269–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosco M.J. A sociocultural examination of response to intervention with Latino English language learners. Theory Into Pract. 2010; 49 (4):265–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz A.A., Robertson P.M., Wilkinson C.Y., Liu Y.J., McGhee B.D., Kushner M.I. The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: implications for response to intervention. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):316–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pang Y. Empowering ELL students to improve writing skills through inquiry-based learning. N. Engl. Read. Assoc. J. 2016; 51 (2):75–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polat N., Zarecky-Hodge A., Schreiber J.B. Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth-and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. J. Educ. Res. 2016; 109 (5):541–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Grisham D.L. Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. J. Literacy Res. 2007; 39 (1):71–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawian R.M., Mokhtar A.A. ESL reading accuracy: the inside story. Soc. Sci. 2017; 12 (7):1242–1249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid T., Heck R.H. Exploring reading achievement differences between elementary school students receiving and not receiving English language services. AERA Online Paper Repositor. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards-Tutor C., Baker D.L., Gersten R., Baker S.K., Smith J.M. The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: a research synthesis. Except. Child. 2016; 82 (2):144–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S.G., Begeny J.C. Improving Latino, English language learners' reading fluency: the effects of small-group and one-on-one intervention. Psychol. Sch. 2011; 48 (6):604–618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth A. Northwest Missouri State University; United States: 2015. Does Buddy Reading Improve Students' Oral Reading Fluency? Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin D.I. Growth in oral reading fluency of Spanish ELL students with learning disabilities. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2016; 52 (1):34–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2016. June). Using technology to improve reading and math scores for the digital native; pp. 1425–1434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E., Pocklington D. MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING (MAC-EMM 2018); 2018. Can CAI Improve Reading Achievement in Young ELL Students? ECONOMICS; p. 229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheng Z., Sheng Y., Anderson C.J. Dropping out of school among ELL students: implications to schools and teacher education. Clear. House. 2011; 84 (3):98–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow C.E., Burns S.M., Griffin P. Predictors of success and failure in reading. Prevent. Read. Difficul. Young Child. 1998:100–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder E., Witmer S.E., Schmitt H. English language learners and reading instruction: a review of the literature. Prev. Sch. Fail.: Alter. Educ. Child. Youth. 2017; 61 (2):136–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soland J., Sandilos L.E. English language learners, self-efficacy, and the achievement gap: understanding the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth. J. Educ. Stud. Placed A. T. Risk. 2020:1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam K.Y., Heng M.A. Using explicit fluency training to improve the reading comprehension of second grade Chinese immigrant students. Mod. J. Lang. Teach Methods. 2016; 6 (5):17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Téllez K., Manthey G. Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learn. Environ. Res. 2015; 18 (1):111–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson C.G., von Gillern S. Video-game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition with English language learners: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020; 30 :100332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Kim A., Sloan C.V.M., Hughes M.T., Elbaum B., Sridhar D. Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: a synthesis of group design studies. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2003; 24 :2–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Martinez L.R., Linan-Thompson S., Reutebuch C.K., Carlson C.D., Francis D.J. Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: findings from two experimental studies. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2009; 2 (4):297–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Mathes P., Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P., Carlson C., Pollard-Durodola S., Francis D. Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elem. Sch. J. 2006; 107 (2):153–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010; 36 (3):1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker S.A. Chicago State University; 2017. Exploration of ELL Parent Involvement Measured by Epstein's Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Roberts G. Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2012; 35 (2):90–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Wexler J., Vaughn S., Ciullo S. Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research. Read. Writ. 2010; 23 (8):889–912. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Vaughn S., Scammacca N.K., Metz K., Murray C.S., Roberts G., Danielson L. Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013; 83 (2):163–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wassell B.A., Hawrylak M.F., Scantlebury K. Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Educ. 2017; 52 (10):1233–1254. [ Google Scholar ]
• White E.L., Gillard S. Technology-based literacy instruction for English language learners. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2011; 8 (6):1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousefi M.H., Biria R. The effectiveness of L2 vocabulary instruction: a meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific J. Second Fore. Lang. Educ. 2018; 3 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]

References for studies included in the meta-analysis

• Amendum S.J., Bratsch-Hines M., Vernon-Feagans L. Investigating the efficacy of a web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Read. Res. Q. 2018; 53 (2):155–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Youth Policy Forum. (2009). Issue brief Moving English language learners to college and career readiness. Retrieved November 22,2009, from: www.aypf.org/documents/ELLIssueBrief
• Callahan R.M., Shifrer D. Equitable access for secondary English learner students: course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educ. Admin. Q. 2016; 52 (3):463–496. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho H., Brutt-Griffler J. Integrated reading and writing: a case of Korean English language learners. Read. Foreign Lang. 2015; 27 (2):242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow B.W.Y., McBride-Chang C., Cheung H. Parent–child reading in English as a second language: effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. J. Res. Read. 2010; 33 (3):284–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz de Quiros A.M., Lara-Alecio R., Tong F., Irby B.J. The effect of a structured story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and literacy acquisition. J. Res. Read. 2012; 35 (1):87–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook A.L. Exploring the role of school counselors. J. Sch. Couns. 2015; 13 (9):1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dabarera C., Renandya W.A., Zhang L.J. The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System. 2014; 42 :462–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dockrell J.E., Stuart M., King D. Supporting early oral language skills for English language learners in inner city preschool provision. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 80 (4):497–515. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippini A.L., Gerber M.M., Leafstedt J.M. A vocabulary-added reading intervention for English learners at-risk of reading difficulties. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2012; 27 (3):14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fry R. How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Hispanic Center; Washington, DC: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamaludin K.A., Alias N., Mohd Khir R.J., DeWitt D., Kenayathula H.B. The effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the development of early reading skills among struggling young ESL readers. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 2016; 27 (3):455–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanno Y., Cromley J. English language learners’ pathways to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record. 2015; 117 (12):1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J. Word meanings matter: cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Tesol Q. 2010; 44 (4):669–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster K.L., Kung S.H., Han I., Cao M. Peer-assisted learning strategies: a “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners' response to intervention. Except. Child. 2008; 74 (2):194–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivier A.M., Anthonissen C., Southwood F. Literacy development of English language learners: the outcomes of an intervention programme in grade R. S. Afr. J. Commun. Disord. 2010; 57 (1):58–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard-Durodola S.D., Gonzalez J.E., Saenz L., Resendez N., Kwok O., Zhu L., Davis H. The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Educ. Dev. 2018; 29 (2):245–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Uccelli P., Biancarosa G., Mo E., Snow C., Neugebauer S. Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Read. Writ. 2011; 24 (5):517–544. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez C.D., Filler J., Higgins K. Using primary language support via computer to improve reading comprehension skills of first-grade English language learners. Comput. Sch. 2012; 29 (3):253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman R., Hines S. The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009; 101 (2):305–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R.E., Madden N., Calderón M., Chamberlain A., Hennessy M. Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educ. Eval. Pol. Anal. 2011; 33 (1):47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solari E.J., Gerber M.M. Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2008; 23 (4):155–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spycher P. Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. Elem. Sch. J. 2009; 109 (4):359–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Koch J. Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. J. Educ. Res. 2014; 107 (5):410–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Mathes P.G. English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal randomized study. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 2008; 30 (4):500–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Yoon M., Mathes P.G. Hispanic English learners' responses to longitudinal English instructional intervention and the effect of gender: a multilevel analysis. Elem. Sch. J. 2010; 110 (4):542–566. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Lara-Alecio R., Irby B.J., Mathes P.G. The effects of an instructional intervention on dual language development among first-grade Hispanic English-learning boys and girls: a two-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Res. 2011; 104 (2):87–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend D., Collins P. Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an intervention study. Read. Writ. 2009; 22 (9):993–1019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 102 (4):786–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: how language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Sci. Stud. Read. 2011; 15 (6):471–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Staden A. Reading in a second language: considering the 'simple view of reading' as a foundation to support ESL readers in Lesotho, Southern Africa. Per Linguam: J. Lang. Learn. 2016; 32 (1):21–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeung S.S., Siegel L.S., Chan C.K. Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Read. Writ. 2013; 26 (5):681–704. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Intervention
• English Learner
• Special Education
• Extended Learning
• Summer Learning
• How it Works
• Reading Assessment
• Personalized Learning
• Teacher-Directed Instruction
• Professional Development and Support
• Content Library

User Experience

• Reading Support Program
• Administrators
• Content Partners
• Research & Results
• Success Stories
• Evaluations

Featured Resource

4 Key Ingredients of a Successful Reading Intervention Implementation

Once you’ve chosen a reading intervention that suits your needs,…

• All Educators ,

Featured Video

Researched based reading interventions for promising readers.

Tier II and III students and other struggling readers often lack the essential comprehension skills and vocabulary to meet grade-level literacy objectives. Reading Plus supports RtI and MTSS models by combining personalized practice with adaptive instruction, helping students to improve silent reading fluency.

The continuous collection of data on student performance customizes the program’s instructional scaffolds, and assists students in developing greater independence.

Reading Plus offers online instruction as well as printable materials for direct instruction and differentiation at the class, small group, and individual levels.

5 Steps to Choosing the Right Intervention for Your District

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), school districts are encouraged to choose intervention programs that have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they improve student outcomes.

Understanding ESSA’s tiers of evidence standards and knowing what to look for will help districts make informed choices about an intervention program’s potential effectiveness. Download our guide to learn more. 

Download Guide

Rapid Results for Tier 2 and 3 Struggling Readers

Reading Plus is designed to rapidly accelerate reading proficiency growth in struggling readers to close the achievement gap. In just 60 hours of Reading Plus use, students make significant gains toward grade-level reading proficiency.

Get More Information

Schedule a Free Demo

Florida State University

FSU | Florida Center for Reading Research

Florida Center for Reading Research

• The Florida K-12 Reading Endorsement
• Competency 4 - Foundations & Applications of Differentiated Instruction

Session 6: Research-based Interventions to Advance Comprehension

Research-based interventions to promote fluency and oral language.

• Castle, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K.  (2018).  Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in Public Interest, 19 , 5-51. PDF in folder
• APM Reports: What the Words Say
• PowerPoint Slides Competency 4 Session 6 : Research-based Interventions to Advance Comprehension
• Planning Standards Aligned Instruction within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports: Vocabulary Example
• Planning Standards Aligned Instruction within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports: Comprehension Example
• Lesson Plan: Word Knowledge: Semantic Feature Analysis
• Lesson Plan: Identifying Narrative Text Structures

Case Study: Juan

Define session goals.

• Define vocabulary knowledge in terms of depth and breadth.
• Identify effective methods to build vocabulary knowledge.
• Identify methods for differentiating vocabulary instruction.
• Explain how to identify target words for vocabulary instruction.
• Define reading comprehension.
• Explain the sociocultural perspective and relate the perspective to reading for meaning.
• Explain what “good readers” do when they read text for understanding.
• Identify effective methods to advance comprehension skills.
• Identify methods for differentiating comprehension instruction.
• Explain how to monitor progress of meaning-focused skills.

Explicit Vocabulary Instruction

• Explain the importance of vocabulary knowledge to reading for meaning (slide 4).
• Review how to explicitly teach vocabulary knowledge listed on slide 5.
• Click on the video hyperlink (slide 5).
• Watch the video of Vocabulary Instruction from the Meadows Center .
• Ask participants to look for examples of the steps listed on slide 5 as they watch.
• After the video, ask for examples of each bullet point listed on slide 5.
• List the steps associated with teaching phonology listed on slide 6.
• Click on the video hyperlink on slide 6 ( IES Video 8: Morphology ).
• Ask participants to look for examples of explicit instruction in the video as they watch the video.
• How could we make this lesson more explicit?
• How could you increase the number opportunities students have to encounter the words, prefixes, suffixes?
• How would you provide affirmative and corrective feedback?
• End with a discussion of how morphology also supports spelling and decoding.

Choosing What Words to Teach

• Share slide 7 and ask what words participants would teach.
• Share slide 7 and explain why the target word was selected.
• Click the video hyperlink on Slide 7 of the Reading Rockets interview with Dr. Isabel Beck .
• After the video, move to slide 9 and 10 sharing examples of the relevance of tier 2 words and the difference between tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 words.

Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

• Explain the importance of depth in vocabulary knowledge instruction by providing examples of different levels of knowledge on slide 11.
• On slide 12, explain what it means to know a word.
• Share the Reading Rockets Video of Using a Concept Sort in the Classroom.
• Discuss how concepts also facilitate the understanding between words and concepts.
• Share slides 14-15 to show other methods and ask participants how these tools could lead to depth of vocabulary knowledge.
• Phonological awareness
• Phonemic awareness

Intensifying Vocabulary Instruction

• Example of planning to differentiate core instruction at tier 1, tier 3 and for students on alternate standards (slide 17).
• Share the sample lesson plan (slide 18).
• What is the target skill?
• What makes this lesson explicit?
• What example do you see related to transfer of the skill?
• How could you make this more or less intensive based on learner need?
• Ask participants for their ideas.
• Share suggestions for students with disabilities and limited verbal speech (slide 20).

Monitoring Vocabulary Progress

• Share the rating scale as a way to gauge level of knowledge.
• Depth and breadth

Define Comprehension

• Reflect back to the Simple View of Reading and explain that it is dependent on several skills including effective word reading, higher order language processing (inference generation), and active engagement with the text.
• Explain comprehension as a relationship between the reader, text and task (slides 24-26).
• Discuss inferences, word and their referents, vocabulary knowledge, homonyms, etc.
• On slide 27, summarize by defining what effective comprehension.
• On slide 28, explain reading instruction from a sociocultural perspective.

Research-Based Reading Comprehension Instruction

• Explain that effective reading comprehension instruction teaches the skills that good readers do.
• Review slide 29 of what good readers typically do.
• Explain the components of good comprehension instruction (slide 30).
• Explain the importance of strategy instruction and instruction that emphasizes building a mental model of text (slide 31).
• Discuss why this works – again these are the skills good readers use while reading.
• Share the video of comprehension instruction in an classroom of ELLs.
• Ask participants to write down what the lesson targets as they watch the video.
• How was comprehension addressed?
• How was vocabulary addressed?
• What are the strategies that specifically were helpful to ELLs?
• Discuss as a whole group.
• Discuss the importance of being explicit.
• Discuss the benefit of providing multiple examples.

Strategies that Support Comprehension

• Explain the importance of understanding text structure to comprehension (slide 34).
• Click on the video hyperlink (slide 35).
• Share the Reading Rockets video with Sylvia Diehl .
• Explain the importance of inference generation to understanding text (slide 37-38).
• On slide 37, share the example and ask participants to explain why this would be an important inference to understanding.
• Share the other example and ask the participants to identify the necessary inference and generate a question to support student inference making.
• Click the hyperlink to the video on Question-Answer Relationships .
• After participants view the video, ask them to respond to the questions in groups of 3-4.
• Stress the question types that reflect an inference.
• Explain the importance of thinking aloud when giving corrective feedback.
• Explain the importance of comprehension strategies (slide 40).
• Click on the video hyperlink.
• Share the video on reciprocal teaching from Reading Rockets.
• As participants watch, ask them to identify the target strategies.
• After watching the video, ask participants to respond to the questions on the slide.
• Explain the importance of modeling corrective feedback by explicitly thinking aloud each step of the strategy.
• Review the paragraph shrinking strategy from Peer Assisted Learning Strategies.
• Click on the hyperlink to the video of paragraph shrinking from the IRIS module.
• After watching the video, ask participants to respond to the questions.
• Ask about peer tutoring as another opportunity for students to apply a comprehension skill taught.

Intensifying Comprehension Instruction

• Example of planning to differentiate core instruction at tier 1, tier 3 and for students on alternate standards (slide 43).
• Share the sample lesson plan (slide 44).
• Making visual cue cards (slide 46).
• Sample curriculum (Early Literacy Skill Builder; Friends on the Block; slide 48-49).
• Graphic organizers that include visual supports (slide 50).
• Visual question cards with scripts.

Monitoring Comprehension Progress

• Refer back to competency 3.
• Provide the case study of Juan.
• Ask participants to read the case in groups of 3-4.
• After participants to respond to questions 1 & 2 and stopping.
• Discuss word identification (multisyllabic words, fluency) and comprehension difficulties (longer texts, more complex concepts).
• Discuss supports that Juan has in addition to his recent admission that he is losing interest in reading.
• Make sure progress monitoring is targeting the needed skills (multisyllabic words, fluency, comprehension.
• Make sure the instructional practices are those that are based in evidence.
• Stress the need for explicit instruction to decrease Juan’s frustration.

Review Culminating Project

• Ask as a whole group, how they used data to inform their instruction.
• How did the students respond to instruction?
• What they would do differently?
• What burning questions remain?

Florida Center for Reading Research 2010 Levy Avenue, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32310

850-644-9352 [email protected]

  SharePoint FCRR Sharepoint

  Newsletter FCRR Monthly Newsletter

Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research

• Published: 26 January 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 1943–1977, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Rachel E. Donegan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7310-7667 1 &
• Jeanne Wanzek 2  

2880 Accesses

22 Citations

15 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 23 June 2021

This article has been updated

In this study, we conducted a review of reading intervention research (1988–2019) for upper elementary struggling readers and examined intervention area (e.g., foundational, comprehension, or multicomponent) and intensity (e.g., hours of intervention, group size, and individualization) as possible moderators of effects. We located 33 studies containing 49 treatment-comparison contrasts, found small effects for foundational reading skills ( g  = 0.22) and comprehension ( g  = 0.21), and decreased effects when considering standardized measures only. For intervention area, only multicomponent interventions predicted significant effects for both comprehension and foundational outcomes. For intensity, we did not find systematic evidence that longer or individualized interventions were associated with larger effects. However, interventions implemented in very small groups predicted larger comprehension outcomes. Overall, more research examining the quality of school provided reading instruction and how the severity of reading difficulties may impact effects of more intensive interventions is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies

Assessing early writing: a six-factor model to inform assessment and teaching

Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction

Change history, 23 june 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10170-5

*Denotes studies included in this meta-analytic review

Austin, C., Wanzek, J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Gesel, S., Donegan, R. E., & Englemann, M. (2019). The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85, 347–366.

Article   Google Scholar  

*Benner, G. (2007). The relative impact of remedial reading instruction on the basic reading skills of students with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, 7, 1–15.

Google Scholar  

*Bennett, S., Calderone, C., Dedrick, R., & Gunn, A. (2015). “Do I have to leave?” Beyond linear text: Struggling readers’ motivation with an innovative musical program. Reading Improvement, 52, 51–60.

Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosnovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief . Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Bryant, D. P., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B. R., & Higgins, K. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593594 .

*Cirino, P., Miciak, J., Gerst, E., Barnes, M., Vaughn, S., Child, A., & Willcutt, E. (2017). Executive function, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension: A training study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415618497 .

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Compton, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Elleman, A., & Gilbert, J. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003 .

*Connor, C., Phillips, B., Kim, Y., Lonigan, C., Kaschak, M., Crowe, E., & Al Otaiba, S. (2018). Examining the efficacy of targeted component interventions on language and literacy for third and fourth graders who are at risk of comprehension difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1481409 .

*Das, J., Hayward, V., Georgiou, G., Janzen, T., & Boora, N. (2008). Comparing the effectiveness of two reading intervention programs for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 7, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589508787381836 .

*Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Pool, J. E. (1995). An experiment on cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949502800201 .

Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032581 .

Donegan, R. E., Wanzek, J., & Al Otaiba, S. (2020). Effects of a reading intervention implemented at differing intensities for upper elementary students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35 (2), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12218 .

Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1 .

Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specific nature of reading comprehension and the case of informational text. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of English language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863091.ch7

Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K., & Schnakenberg, J. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998 .

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 .

Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200 .

Flynn, L., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.x .

*Fuchs, D., Hendricks, E., Walsh, M., Fuchs, L., Gilbert, J., Zhang Tracy, W., & Peng, P. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near-transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12162 .

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W. D. (2008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. In Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/ .

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

Hiebert, E. H. (2008). The (mis)match between texts and students who depend on schools to become literate. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Guilford.

Jung, P., Mcmaster, K., Kunkel, A., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12172 .

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. In Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc .

*Keller, J., Ruthruff, E., & Keller, P. (2019). Mindfulness and speed testing for children with learning disabilities: Oil and water? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35, 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1524803 .

*Kim, J., Capotosto, L., Hartry, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Can a mixed-method literacy intervention improve the reading achievement of low-performing elementary school students in an after-school program? Results from a randomized controlled trial of READ 180 Enterprise. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711399148 .

*Kim, J., Samson, J., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9198-2 .

Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.211 .

Lee, J., & Yoon, S. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194 .

Lemons, C., Fuchs, D., Gilbert, J., & Fuchs, L. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14539189 .

Lipka, O., Lesaux, N., & Siegel, L. (2006). Retrospective analyses of the reading development of Grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390040901 .

Lipsey, M.W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M.A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M.W., Roberts, M., Anthony, K.S., Busick, M.D. (2012). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research. In Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms . (NCSER 2013-3000). Retrieved from http://ies.edu.gov/ncser .

*Mason, L., Davison, M., Hammer, C., Miller, C., & Glutting, J. (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading and Writing, 26, 1133–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0 .

*Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 233–243.

*Miciak, J., Roberts, G., Taylor, W., Solis, M., Ahmed, Y., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2018). The effects of one versus two years of intensive reading intervention implemented with late elementary struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12159 .

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x .

*O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S. M., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.474 .

O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380050701 .

*O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400102 .

Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Berman, A. I. (Eds.). (2020). Reaping the Rewards of the Reading for Understanding Initiative . Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.31094/2020/2

Pyle, N., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21593 .

*Reed, D., Aloe, A., Reeger, A., & Folsom, J. (2019). Defining summer gain among elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918819426 .

*Ring, J., Barefoot, L., Avrit, K., Brown, S., & Black, J. (2013). Reading fluency instruction for students at risk for reading failure. Remedial and Special Education, 34 (2), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511435175 .

*Ritchey, K., Silverman, R., Montanaro, E., Speece, D., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 78, 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800304 .

Ritchey, K., Palombo, K., Silverman, R., & Speece, D. (2017). Effects of an informational text reading comprehension intervention for fifth-grade students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716682689 .

*Roberts, G., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Miciak, J., Quinn, J., Vaughn, S., & Levin, J. (2018). Examining the effects of afterschool reading interventions for upper elementary struggling readers. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517750818 .

Sanchez, V. M., & O’Connor, R. E. (2015). Building tier 3 intervention for long-term slow growers in grades 3–4: A pilot study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30 (4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12085 .

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995 .

Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010–4038). Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J., Brady, S., & Shaywitz, B. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4 .

Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402691 .

*Swanson, H., & O’Connor, R. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on the reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 548–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338742 .

*Thames, D., Reeves, C., Kazelskis, R., York, K., Boling, C., Newell, K., & Wang, Y. (2008). Reading comprehension: Effects of individualized, integrated language arts as a reading approach with struggling readers. Reading Psychology, 29, 86–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710701853625 .

*Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x .

*Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104 .

*Toste, J., Capin, P., Williams, K., Cho, E., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Replication of an experimental study investigating the efficacy of a multisyllabic word reading intervention with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775114 .

*Vadasy, P., & Sanders, E. (2008). Benefits of repeated reading intervention for low-achieving fourth- and fifth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312013 .

*Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Miciak, J., Taylor, P., & Fletcher, J. (2019). Efficacy of a word- and text-based intervention for students with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52 (1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775113 .

*Vaughn, S., Solís, M., Miciak, J., Taylor, W., & Fletcher, J. (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 (Suppl 1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1126386 .

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A., Cirino, P., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older student with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 931–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9183-9 .

Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A., Cirino, P., Romain, M., & Denton, C. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700401 .

*Wanzek, J., & Roberts, G. (2012). Reading Interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711434047 .

*Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Otaiba, S., Rivas, B., Jones, F., Kent, S., & Mehta, P. (2017). Effects of a year long supplemental reading intervention for students with reading difficulties in fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000184 .

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212 .

Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5 .

Wilson, D. B. (n.d.). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator [Online calculator]. Retrieved April, 2019, from https:/ www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/research-for-resources/effect-size-calculator.html

*Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 12, 87–103.

*Young, C., Mohr, K., & Rasinski, T. (2014). Reading together: A successful reading fluency intervention. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.97667 .

Zimmermann, L., Reed, D., & Aloe, A. (2019). A meta-analysis of non-repetitive reading fluency interventions for students with reading difficulties . Remedial and Special Education: Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193251985505 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

This research was supported in part by Grant H325H140001 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education and by Award Number R01HD091232 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Special and Early Education, College of Education, Northern Illinois University, 1425 West Lincoln Hwy., DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

Rachel E. Donegan

Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

Jeanne Wanzek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel E. Donegan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rachel Donegan: Formerly at Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Donegan, R.E., Wanzek, J. Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Read Writ 34 , 1943–1977 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y

Download citation

Accepted : 06 January 2021

Published : 26 January 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• At risk population
• Reading difficulties
• Reading disabilities
• Reading intervention
• Upper elementary
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

☀️Summer 2024 MTSS Mini Summit: MTSS-Behavior Essentials at Your Fingertips 💙  👉 Sign up now

Data Integrations

NEW: SRSS-IE Integration

• Improve Academic Achievement
• Whole Child Support & Wellness
• Communication, Collaboration, & Engagement
• Teacher Satisfaction & Retention
• Cost-Effective & Efficient Systems
• Professional Learning Series
• Customized Coaching
• The MTSS Learning Hub
• The MTSS Success Package
• Success Stories
• Testimonials
• MTSS Hall of Fame
• Pathfinders Community
• Schoolin' Around Podcast
• Quick Access to Guides & Toolkits
• MTSS Quizzes
• Funding & Grants
• Sign Up for Our Newsletter
• Summer 2024 MTSS Mini-Summit
• 2023 Professional Learning Retreat
• MTSS Summit 2023
• MTSS Summit 2022
• Our Approach
• Data Privacy Practices
• Meet Our Team
• Awards & Accolades

Top 5 Most Common MTSS Reading Programs Used in 2020

Print/Save as PDF

An effective core reading curriculum, as well as differentiated support for struggling readers, is essential for any MTSS practice. But with the hundreds of reading programs available for districts and schools, it can be difficult to determine which one is the most effective.

Below we outline the five most frequently used reading programs and platforms by Branching Minds school districts throughout 2020. We provide a critical overview of the research and evidence base for these programs and outline what educators should be aware of when implementing these approaches. We also include some general recommendations for teachers, principals, and administrators to ensure that their reading curriculum is effectively meeting the needs of all students. 

Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention

F&P LLI is by far the most commonly used program for Tier 2 and 3 students on the Branching Minds platform; in 2020 it was used to support over 5000 students. Despite its popularity, the program has been highly criticized for years by educators and cognitive scientists.

One of the main sources of criticism is the program’s focus on a method of reading known as “cueing”, where students are trained to use pieces of information from the text to “read” a given word. This method runs counter to a large body of research showing that strong readers use letter-sound correspondence and phonemic awareness to decipher words. Although F&P does include phonics in the curriculum, it is not as systematic and explicit as other reading programs.  

Another criticism of the program has to do with the research evidence supporting the program’s effectiveness. Although F&P does fall into the “Strong” ESSA category, the program has only been shown to be effective for students in kindergarten and first grade. Research has also shown that the program may lead to adverse reading outcomes for students in older grades. It has been theorized that the methods used in F&P may provide temporary skills for younger children to improve in early reading, but they are not providing a strong enough foundation for children to show reading success in the future years, especially as students are expected to read and understand more complex words and sentences. In other words, the F&P approach may not hold up over time. 

Finally, one of the most troubling criticisms of F&P is that some of the content in the leveled readers perpetuates racist stereotypes. A recent study , which used critical content analysis, found that books included in Level U of F&P LLI presented people of color as inferior, deviant, and helpless, while white characters were depicted as heroic, determined, innovative, and successful.

Not only does this study raise serious questions about whether F&P books belong in any classrooms, but it points to a larger issue with educational content that may exist beyond just the F&P program. Nevertheless, if F&P is the go-to reading program at your school or district, it may be time to take a more critical look at the content as well as how it is serving your students. 

iStation is another popular reading program that has endured its fair share of criticism. The program includes a universal assessment, called ISIP, that is used to place students in interactive online instruction aligned with their learning needs. One of the biggest criticisms of this program is its over-reliance on technology.

While independent practice through computer-based programs can be beneficial for students, there needs to also be interactions between students and teachers, so that teachers can adequately monitor how students are reading and provide real-time feedback and dialogues about the text. This is especially critical during the early elementary years, when these instructional interactions can provide students with foundational reading skills. 

Another issue with iStation is the lack of independent research supporting its claimed impacts on student learning. The studies also lack a proper control group and only show correlations between the student’s use of iStation and their reading outcomes. Despite these inconclusive findings, some states have adopted iStation as their primary education platform. So some educators might not have a choice in terms of whether or not they use this program. But for students who require support at the Tier 2 or 3 level, it is important to go beyond this online platform and make sure they are getting the small group or one-on-one support that they need to meet their grade level expectations.  

Achieve3000

Achieve3000 is another popular online program that also uses its own assessment system to provide students with instruction tailored to their reading level. A key benefit of the Achieve3000 program is its explicit use of research-based approaches to reading, such as a multi-sensory approach and systematic phonics linguistics instruction. Although most of the content is presented individually to students online, there is also a direct instruction component as well as lessons that can be delivered to a whole class, in small groups and one-on-one.

Finally, the platform is also meant to adapt to the needs of individual learners while also providing all learners with access to grade-level literacy content. This ensures that all students can participate in whole class discussions related to the readings. In other words, Achieve3000 can be used to support students across tier levels.

The research findings for Achieve3000 are also promising. In a large randomized controlled trial , with students from both urban and suburban school districts, the implementation of Achieve3000 had positive effects on students in middle and high school, specifically 6th and 9th-grade students. However, only small-scale studies have been conducted with elementary students showing positive but smaller effects on reading outcomes.

Interestingly, one larger study with elementary students was unable to find significant effects due to poor overall implementation of the program (a summary of all the Achieve3000 studies can be found here ). Overall, Achieve3000 appears to provide students with adequate reading support and is likely a good program for middle and high school students. Benefits may be seen for elementary students as well, but proper implementation is essential.  

Wilson Fundations

Wilson Fundations is a Tier 1 and 2 reading program for early elementary (K-3) students. The program is grounded in reading research , highlighting the importance of phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It also uses a multi-sensory teaching approach that is structured, systematic, and cumulative. Unlike some of the programs outlined above, Fundations is primarily implemented directly through the classroom teacher and not online, although they currently have an online resource hub that can be used for virtual instruction. In addition to being used as a whole-class supplementary program, Fundations can be used as an early intervention for students who are struggling with reading and require Tier 2 support. 

Several studies have been conducted on the Wilson Fundations program, but unfortunately, there haven’t been any randomized controlled trials. So although the existing research does show that students who receive the program show gains in their reading skills, the actual impact of the program is still unknown. Other reviews of the program have criticized its lack of opportunities for independent student practice. Nevertheless, the strong adherence to reading science principles makes this program a good starting point for early readers, but teachers may find that they need to provide students with additional support and scaffolding beyond what the program provides. 

i-Ready is well known for its universal screeners and benchmarks, but they also provide a K-8 reading program. The program is primarily implemented online and provides personalized lessons that are based on students' performance on the i-Ready diagnostic assessment. The program also includes Tools for Instruction, which are lesson plans provided to teachers that are meant to address the specific learning gaps of their students. These lessons can be delivered in small groups and one-on-one with students who are struggling with reading skills. They can also be used with an entire class to clarify more complicated concepts and skills. The content is also based on research and best practices and focuses on phonics, word recognition, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. 

Quasi-experimental research studies (i.e., the control and treatment groups were not selected at random) conducted on the i-Ready program have shown that students who did receive the program showed significant improvements in their reading outcomes. This was found in a study with early elementary (K-2) students as well as middle school students (6th grade) ; however, no positive effects were found for students in grades 3-5 . Importantly, these studies did not look at the outcomes for specific subgroups. There is some preliminary evidence that the program does benefit students with special needs, but this area needs further examination in order to draw conclusions. 

Recommendations for Supporting Students in Reading

The main takeaway from the summaries above is that there is no perfect reading program. While many of these programs market themselves as comprehensive solutions, the truth is there is no “one size fits all” approach. This probably comes as no surprise to teachers who have witnessed firsthand how many programs don’t meet the specific needs of all students. To conclude, here are some things to consider when deciding on which reading programs and practices to implement in MTSS. 

Understand the specific needs of the student

Many students struggle with reading, but the cause of these issues can be quite different depending on the individual. Given the underlying issue, some approaches may be more or less effective for certain students. Sometimes the areas of concern can be determined through the results of universal screeners and assessments. Other times more observations of the student and their reading abilities is needed.

While many programs try to address this through the use of online diagnostics and adaptive content, these programs may still miss the individual needs of certain students, social-emotional competencies, and other factors that influence their ability to develop their reading skills. This type of problem-solving requires ongoing interactions between students and teachers as well as collaboration among educators to determine the best course of action.

Shift from an emphasis on programs to a strategies-based approach

Consider the research evidence.

Although it can be difficult to decipher the true meaning of the results from large experimental studies, it's important to pay attention to certain aspects of the research in order to understand a program’s effectiveness.

As we’ve outlined above, some programs may exhibit “strong” research evidence, but only for specific grade levels. This is not a surprise given that the learning needs of children and adolescents change as they develop. It may be that middle and high school students do better with approaches that foster independence while younger elementary students require more hands-on approaches. In addition, it is much easier to draw conclusions about programs and practices that have been evaluated in an experimental or quasi-experimental study (i.e., a control group was included), compared to studies that just showed student improvement over time without any type of comparison or control.

Finally, if you really want to critically evaluate the quality of research on a program, take a closer look at the assessments used to measure student growth and achievement. Some programs boast positive outcomes for students, but their study used unreliable and unvalidated measures of reading achievement; in other words, their findings are meaningless. 

Dr. Essie Sutton

Essie Sutton is an Applied Developmental Psychologist and the Director of Learning Science at Branching Minds. Her work brings together the fields of Child Development and Education Psychology to improve learning and development for all students. Dr. Sutton is responsible for studying the impacts of the Branching Minds on students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes. She also leverages MTSS research and best practices to develop and improve the Branching Minds platform.

Connect with Dr. Essie Sutton

Related posts.

Tagged: Interventions and Learning Supports' Strategies

Comments (1)

Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best Evidence Synthesis

Many reading programs claim to boost student performance, but how is that measured? Johns Hopkins University examined more than 200 published studies to create this quick guide to programs.

On this page:

Key findings, program ratings, review methods, program ratings basis.

What reading programs have been proven to help middle and high school students to succeed? To find out, this review summarizes evidence on four types of programs designed to improve the reading achievement of students in grades 6-12:

• Reading Curricula (Curr) , such as LANGUAGE!, McDougal Littel, and other standard and alternative textbooks.
• Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) , such as Jostens/Compass Learning, and Accelerated Reader.
• Instructional Process Programs (IP) , such as cooperative learning , strategy instruction, and other approaches primarily intended to change teachers’ instructional methods rather than curriculum or textbooks.
• Combined CAI and Instructional Process Models (CAI + IP) such as READ 180 and Voyager Passport.

Overall, 36 experimental-control comparisons met the inclusion criterion, of which 7 used random assignment to treatments. No studies of reading curricula qualified, but there were 8 studies of CAI, 16 of instructional process programs, 10 of combined CAI and instructional process programs, and 2 of combined curriculum and instructional process programs. Effect sizes were averaged across studies, weighted by sample size.

• Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) . Studies of CAI find minimal achievement outcomes. Mean weighted effect size across 8 studies: +0.10.
• Instructional Process Strategies (IP) . The largest number of high-quality studies evaluated instructional process programs, especially forms of cooperative learning (ES= +0.28 in 7 studies). Mean weighted effect size across 14 studies: +0.21.
• Combined CAI and Instructional Process Programs (CAI + IP) . Positive effects were found for READ 180. Mean weighted effect size across 9 studies: +0.22.
• Combined Curriculum and Instructional Process Programs (Curr + IP) . A randomized study of REACH found an effect size of 0.00, and the same study found an effect size of +0.17 for RISE.

See the full report:  Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis .

Listed below are currently available programs, grouped by strength of effectiveness. Within each group, programs are listed alphabetically. The type for each program corresponds to the categories above (e.g., IP = Instructional Process Strategies).

Strong evidence of effectiveness

Moderate evidence of effectiveness, limited evidence of effectiveness, insufficient evidence, no qualifying studies.

An exhaustive search considered more than 300 published and unpublished articles. It included those that met the following criteria:

• Schools or classrooms using each program had to be compared to randomly assigned or well-matched control groups.
• Study duration had to be at least 12 weeks.
• Outcome measures had to be assessments of the reading content being taught in all classes. Almost all are standardized test, or state assessments.
• The review placed particular emphasis on studies in which schools, teachers, or students were assigned at random to experimental or control groups.

Programs were rated according to the overall strength of the evidence supporting their effects on reading achievement. “Effect size” (ES) is the proportion of a standard deviation by which a treatment group exceeds a control group. Large studies are those involving a total of at least 10 classes or 250 students. The categories are as follows:

• Strong Evidence of Effectiveness: At least one large randomized or randomized quasi-experimental study, plus at least one additional study of any qualifying design, with a collective sample size of 500 students and an overall weighted mean effect size of at least +.20.
• Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness: Two large studies of any qualifying design or multiple smaller studies with a collective sample size of 500 students, with a median effect size of at least +0.20.
• Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: At least one qualifying study with statistically significant differences and effect size of +0.10 or more.
• Insufficient Evidence of Effectiveness: Studies show no significant differences.
• No Qualifying Studies: No studies met inclusion standards.

Liked it? Share it!

Visit our sister websites:, reading rockets launching young readers (opens in a new window), start with a book read. explore. learn (opens in a new window), colorín colorado helping ells succeed (opens in a new window), ld online all about learning disabilities (opens in a new window), reading universe all about teaching reading and writing (opens in a new window).

• About ACSI ▼ About ACSI ▼ Mission and Vision Statement of Faith Frequently Asked Questions Flourishing School Culture ACSI Leadership ▼ Board of Directors Senior Leadership News and More ▼ Contact Us News ACSI Logos and Style Guide Stories ACSI Statements
• Membership ▼ Join ACSI - Start Here ▼ Detailed Member Benefits School Membership Applications Individual Membership Have a Question about Membership? ▼ Submit a Membership Inquiry Frequently Asked Questions Why Christian Schooling?
• Academic Support Programs ▼ Student Success Center ▼ About the Student Success Center The Third Dimension in Education Early Education ▼ Early Education Foundation Statements Early Education Conferences Principles and Practices of Christian Early Education 2.0 Early Education Resource Center Early Education Webinars Early Education News & Nuggets Higher Education ▼ Member Benefits ACSI Christian College Scholarships and Programs for Students and Educators Higher Education Accredited Programs (HEAP) List Member Institutions Student Activities ▼ Student Activities Home Page Student Activities Contact Info Student Activities E-vents International Student Program Service
• Accreditation & Certification ▼ Accreditation - For Schools & Teams ▼ Why Pursue ACSI Accreditation? Accreditation Overview for EE-12 Schools Accreditation Contacts School Accreditation Documents Team Accreditation Documents Annual Report Documents for Schools Exemplary Accreditation Online Schools Accreditation Hybrid Schools Accreditation Accreditation by School Progress (ASP) Documents Steps to School Improvement Certification - For Teachers & Administrators ▼ Certification Overview Certification Documents and Requirements Submit a Certification Question Frequently Asked Questions Certification Process Contact the Certification Department CEUs School-Based Professional Development Program ▼ School-Based Professional Development Overview School-Based Professional Development Details School-Based Professional Development Program Documents
• Store ▼ Purposeful Design Publications (PDP) ▼ PDP Website Home Page Assessments Current Promotions Curriculum Textbooks (PDP) Great Commission Project
• Find Your Office ▼ Global National ▼ Global - Offices & Leadership Global National Offices International Schools ▼ International Schools Home Page International School Member Benefits International School Accreditation International School Events International School Resources PFO2Go Online Course US Divisions ▼ Western Division Central Division Eastern Division One-Day Flourishing Event Leadership Networks Leadership Network Meetings
• Public Policy & Legal Affairs ▼ Advocacy Initiatives ▼ State Networks ACSI Engagement Get Involved Topics to Follow COVID-19 Vaccine Equality Act Community Resources Legal Defense Reimbursement Program ▼ LDRP Member Resources Public Policy & Advocacy Summit COVID-19 Legal Legislative Update Publication ▼ Legal Legislative Update (LLU) Issues Legal/Legislative Events
• Professional Development ▼ Leaders ▼ Flourishing Schools Institute (FSi) Leadership University Leadership Webinars Online Courses MAX Events Faculty ▼ Early Education Conferences ConNexus Premium Online Courses PD By Design PD Webinars MAX Events CEU ▼ CEU Provider Questions What You Need to Know Board ▼ CSM Trustee Online Training Exhibitor and Advertiser Information Flourishing Initiative
• Thought Leadership ▼ Flourishing Schools Research Sustainability Initiative ACSI Blog and Podcast
• Flourishing Schools ▼ Flourishing Schools Institute ▼ One-Day Flourishing Event Flourishing School Culture
• Get Involved ▼ Make a Single or Recurring Donation ▼ Giving Tuesday Give Online Disaster Reconstruction Fund Support Christian Schooling ▼ Invest in Christian Education Christian School Recovery Strategic Partnership Program ▼ Strategic Partner Directory Strategic Partners by Level Becoming a Strategic Partner Legal Legislative Issues ▼ Get Involved

ACSI Leadership

News and more, join acsi - start here, have a question about membership, why christian schooling, student success center, student activities, early education, higher education, international student program service, accreditation - for schools & teams, certification - for teachers & administrators, school-based professional development program, purposeful design publications (pdp), global national, leadership network meetings, international schools, us divisions, advocacy initiatives, legal defense reimbursement program, public policy & advocacy summit, exhibitor and advertiser information, flourishing initiative, flourishing schools research, sustainability initiative, acsi blog and podcast, flourishing schools institute, flourishing school culture, make a single or recurring donation, foundation & funds, support christian schooling, strategic partnership program, legal legislative issues, essential components of research-based reading practices.

In her article about reading efficiency, Randi Bender (2018) states, “We’re not born with the ability to read; we have to learn how to do it. We must move through a progression of steps that include learning how to recognize letters and sounds, decode words, and ultimately figure out how to comprehend texts.”  

Components of an Effective Program  

The science of reading, a growing body of research, identifies five essential components of an effective reading program:  phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension (National Center on Improving  Literacy , 2022; University of Nebraska, 2020). Other fundamental components of a well-rounded language arts program also incorporate sight word recognition, listening comprehension, language structures including syntax and semantics, verbal reasoning, and literary knowledge. 

Phonemic Awareness   

Phonemic awareness is the foundation of learning phonics (Center on Improving Literacy, 2022; University of Nebraska, 2020). It is the ability to hear the segmented sounds of language and the ability to manipulate those sounds in the playful early stages of language. Adding, deleting, substituting, blending, segmenting, and isolating final and medial phonemes are some of the exercises that assist young readers in playing with language (University of Nebraska, 2020).   

Phonics is the “system by which the sounds in spoken language are represented by the letters in printed language” (University of Nebraska, 2020). Phonics includes the study of the relationship between the sounds of a language and the letters and letter groupings (e.g., blends, diagraphs) that represent those sounds. Essentially, phonics is the study of the phoneme-grapheme relationship. The student must master the alphabetic code and the corresponding sounds that go with that written code to decode written language.  

Mastery of phonics and daily practice lead to reading fluency. Fluency in reading involves automaticity, accuracy, and speed. When readers no longer slowly “sound out” the words in the reading process, but instead automatically recognize entire syllables, words, or phrases, their reading speeds up, and their brains literally shift to reading for meaning.    

Including explicit sight word instruction in a language arts program helps students develop fluency. Well-established and research-based sight word lists such as the Fry Word List contain the thousand most frequently utilized words in English publications (Kress & Fry, 2015; kenton.kyschools.us, 2020; Bales, 2019). “The first 300 words make up approximately 65% of all written material” (Kenton.kyschools.us, 2020). Reading automaticity or “efficiency goes hand in glove with motivation and comprehension,” says Berkeley Professor Emeritus, Dr. P. David Pearson. “Readers need all three to be able to learn new ideas from the books they read. Think of it as a combination of skill, will, and thrill. Efficiency provides the skill, motivation engenders the will, and comprehension leads to the thrill of acquiring new ideas” (Bender, 2018, par. 6).   

Vocabulary Development and Listening Comprehension    

Including explicit vocabulary instruction in a language arts program is essential since students learn vocabulary through systematic instruction and through conversations on a variety of topics at home and in the classroom (Lee, 2020). Students master vocabulary through grouped vocabulary words that share meaning (i.e., morphology) through the systematic study of affixes (i.e., prefixes and suffixes) and base words (i.e., root words) that, in English, are primarily derived from Greek and Latin roots. Additionally, the practice of reading advanced books aloud to students raises their listening comprehension beyond their reading comprehension. Then, when students read text, they recognize the meaning of the words used and derive pleasure from understanding the passage they have just decoded. Advanced listening vocabulary undergirds reading vocabulary and activates background knowledge (Hogan, Adlof, & Alonzo, 2014; Sedita, 2016).   

Reading Comprehension  

Reading comprehension is the ability to make meaning from what has been read. It builds on listening skills, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and background knowledge (Hogan, Adlof, & Alonzo, 2014). Working memory and attention are also essential. Comprehension enables students to learn, grow, and exchange ideas; access the Word and the world; think critically; clarify their belief system; and change the world for Christ!    

Conclusion   

As you preview comprehensive language arts programs, your end goal should be a highly reputable Christian publisher whose language arts series blends research-based science of reading components and fundamental literacy components and also weaves a trustworthy biblical worldview throughout. The Purposeful Design Publications (PDP) Language Arts series masterfully incorporates systematic phonemic awareness and phonics skills instruction. Explicit vocabulary instruction is taught through oral vocabulary lessons, rich literature read-aloud selections, guided and independent reading, and spelling. Additionally, the PDP Language Arts series provides an opportunity for students to develop their fluency skills with decodable readers as well as providing a robust selection of literature from a variety of genres at all levels. Promoting daily practice and recreational reading at an independent reading level is key to ensuring that your students learn to enjoy reading and develop reading fluency through interest-based reading selections. Interest, motivation (Christensen, Reschly & Wylie, 2012), and time on task are key (Bridges, 2015). Every chapter and level in PDP’s Language Arts series weaves together the wonders of oral and written language along with a biblical worldview. PDP’s Language Arts series also includes an emphasis on writing, grammar, spelling, and rich literature as an essential part of any language arts program. There are 12 decodable readers and 18 leveled readers provided for use in Kindergarten–Grade 2, as well as reader guides to accompany the leveled readers. As students advance to middle and upper elementary grades, literature guides promote comprehension, text-to-text and text-to-life connections, and an overall love of literature. There is no doubt that PDP’s Language Arts series will enrich young readers for generations to come.  

About the Author  

References  

Bales, Kris (July 12, 2019). “What are Fry words?” ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2/15/20 from thoughtco.com .   

Bender, Randi (October 15, 2018). “Efficiency, Motivation and Comprehension = the ‘Skill, Will and Thrill’ of Reading. Retrieved 2/9/20 from EdSurge.com .   

Bridges, Lois (2015). The Joy and Power of Reading: A Summary of Research and Expert Opinion. New York, NY: Scholastic.   

Christensen, S., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science.   

Hogan, Tiffany P., Suzanne M. Adlof, & Chrystle N. Alonzo (2014). “On the Importance of Listening Comprehension.” International Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 16(3): 199–207.   

Kenton.kyschools.us (2020). “Fry Words: We’re building our sight word vocabulary.” Retrieved 2/15/20 from kenton.kyschools.us .   

Kress, Jacqueline & Edward Fry (2015). The Reading Teacher’s Book of Lists (6th Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.   

Lee, Andrew (2020). “6 Essential Skills for Reading Comprehension.” Retrieved 2/15/20 from understood.org. McRae, A. & Guthrie, J.T. (2009). “Promoting Reasons for Reading: Teacher Practices that Impact Motivation.” In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading More, Reading Better. New York: Guildford Press. Retrieved 2/9/20 from ReadingRockets.org .   

National Center on Improving Literacy (2022). The Science of Reading: The Basics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. Retrieved from Improving Literacy.org .    

Nebraska Department of Education (November 2020). Science of Reading: Phonological Awareness & Phonics. Professional Presentation, pp. 1-34. Retrieved 4/2/2024 from https://cdn.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Nebraska-Session-1-Phonological-Awareness-and-Phonics-2.pdf  

Sedita, Joan (2016). “The Listening and Reading Comprehension Link.” Literacy Lines, retrieved 2/16/20 from keystoliteracy.com .   

Related Stories

Explicit phonics in early education: where do i begin, teacher well-being: not just an afterthought, spiritual stewardship in your school: data can help.

• 731 Chapel Hills Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80920
• 800.367.5391
• Contact Us Careers Privacy Statement

• Shopping Cart 0
• Read Naturally Live
• Word Warm-ups Live
• One Minute Reader Live
• Read Naturally Live—Español
• Order Read Live
• Log In to Read Live
• Read Live Help
• Read Naturally Encore II
• Read Naturally GATE+
• Word Warm-ups
• Take Aim at Vocabulary
• Signs for Sounds
• All Intervention Programs

Assessment Tools

• Accessories
• Read Live Hands-on Public Seminar
• Read Live Hands-on District Seminar
• Read Naturally Live Virtual Seminar
• Read Live Online Courses
• Student Training Videos
• Encore II Virtual Seminar
• Conferences
• Read Naturally Strategy
• Components of Reading
• Research Basis for Programs
• Challenges We Address
• Evidence-Based Studies
• Additional Studies and Reviews
• Alignment With Best Practices
• Technical Info (Assessments)
• Connect With Us
• Submit a Review
• News and Awards
• Contact Info
• Star of the Month
• School of the Year
• Friends and Partners
• Knowledgebase

Intervention Programs

Click an icon to show products that focus on or support that skill:.

• Comprehension
• Phonemic Awareness
•   Show All

5 of 5 ( 271 reviews | add review )

Individualized, online reading intervention program using web-based software. Read Live includes Read Naturally Live, Word Warm-ups Live, One Minute Reader Live curriculum, and Read Naturally Live—Español to build fluency, develop phonics...

Read Naturally® Live

Individualized, online reading intervention program using web-based software. Curriculum included: Sequenced (core intervention), Phonics series, and Idioms series. Also available as an iPad app.

Word Warm-ups® Live

Individualized, online phonics intervention program using web-based software. Students build mastery and automaticity in phonics and decoding with audio-supported lessons covering specific phonics patterns.

One Minute Reader® Live

Independent, audio-supported, supplemental reading program with interactive and motivating systems designed to develop successful, confident learners.

Read Naturally® Live—Español

This Spanish-language version of Read Naturally Live develops Spanish literacy skills and fluency using web-based software. Helps native Spanish speakers or English speakers develop reading fluency in Spanish.

Read Naturally® Encore II

5 of 5 ( 33 reviews | add review )

Individualized reading intervention program using printed stories and audio support on CDs. Curriculum options: Sequenced (core intervention), Phonics, Idioms, and Spanish series.

One Minute Reader® Books

5 of 5 ( 1 review | add review )

Audio-supported, leveled books with audio CDs for independent reading in school or at home.

Read Naturally® GATE+

5 of 5 ( 9 reviews | add review )

Small-group instruction to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, high-frequency words, fluency, and more. Curriculum options: level 0.8 (Short Vowels), level 1.3 (Long Vowels), level 1.8 (Blends & Digraphs/Suffixes).

Word Warm-ups®

4.9 of 5 ( 8 reviews | add review )

A quick, timed, independent phonics intervention program that builds automaticity in phonics and decoding for students who have had some phonics instruction but have not yet mastered decoding words. Students work mostly independently with audio...

Take Aim! at Vocabulary™

5 of 5 ( 5 reviews | add review )

Teaches the meaning of high-utility words and helps students develop lifelong strategies for learning new words. Students work mostly independently or in small groups.

Signs for Sounds™

4.9 of 5 ( 12 reviews | add review )

Teacher-led small group or individual instruction to teach regular phonetic spelling patterns and high-frequency words through spelling.

5 of 5 ( 4 reviews | add review )

Teach phonemic awareness to small groups of pre-readers or struggling readers. Students gain awareness of words, syllables, rhyming, phonemes, and phoneme manipulation using a research-based, scripted curriculum with interactive exercises.

Splat-O-Nym

5 of 5 ( 2 reviews | add review )

Build vocabulary with this iPad app that makes learning words FUN! Students independently play games that include over 7,000 synonym questions, 1,000 antonym questions, and 600 meaning-from-context questions.

Read Naturally® Resources for the Blind and Visually Impaired

( 0 reviews | add review )

Resource CDs enable you to convert Read Naturally Masters Edition stories to Braille or large print to accelerate the reading achievement of blind and visually impaired students. Curriculum options: Sequenced (core intervention) or Phonics series.

I am a reading teacher who currently works with middle school students. Read Live offers stories that are interesting and contain sophisticated vocabulary. It can be overwhelming to preteens and teens to struggle with reading materials and also...

Read Live has been an excellent resource for my reading intervention for 5th and 6th-grade students. Students are amazed when they do their "Hot Timing" and exceed their goal. With large groups in my classroom, the reading intervention was slow...

As a reading specialist (K-5), Read Live has been my favorite online learning platform hands-down. I love that I can adjust the programs and settings for each individual student. Some students use all three options (Read Live, One-Minute Reader,...

I absolutely love using the Read Naturally Live programs with my middle school special education students! I first used RNL approximately 10 years ago and have transitioned to 3 different schools since then. In each new school I was able to...

Read Naturally is a tried and true system for teaching literacy: reading & comprehension. It is powerful and successful because it targets learning in ways that ensures improvement for students—And students LOVE IT !

My daughter was in 4th grade and a very reluctant reader. A teacher in our school at the time found Read Naturally and implemented it as the reading program in her 5th grade class. This is when it was on CDs! My daughter went from a 2nd to a 5th...

I honestly can't think of anything to improve on - here are the things we loved... the stories were great (students enjoyed them) ease of use for teachers - fabulous support from Read Naturally was excellent! :) (my favorite) the...

I absolutely love the Read Naturally program. My students grew so much as a result of using the program. They are doing their cold reads at 20-30 words higher than when they started Read Naturally two months ago. One of my students said today,...

I have seen measurable progress when using the Read Live program to build fluency, vocabulary and comprehension skills. I like assigning homework on Read Live and then meeting with the student, to go over their progress during the school day. The...

This is my first time using Read Naturally and I already see some amazing benefits for both the students and myself, the classroom teacher. I see the skills they are learning on Read Naturally naturally help their reading skills transfer in other...

Reading assessments help teachers determine which students need intervention programs and help monitor their progress.

Quick Phonics Screener

Reading Fluency Progress Monitor

Read Naturally Training

To help you grow as an educator and make the most of Read Naturally programs, we offer a range of professional development options. 

• Read Naturally Seminars
• Read Naturally Live Hands-on Training
• Online Courses for Teachers
• District/Service Center Training
• Read Live Data Analysis / Coaching
• Conference Presentations

Please let us know what questions you have so we can assist. For Technical Support, please call us or submit a software support request .

• School Login
• Programs for Home
• Login / Register
• Forgot Password

The Impact of Fluency on Reading Comprehension: How Does Reading Speed Matter?

Reading fluency is a critical component of language education, underpinning how we read and comprehend what we read. In the journey of mastering literacy, understanding the intricate balance between reading speed, accuracy, and expression is vital. The science of reading curriculum , a research-backed approach, emphasizes the importance of these elements by integrating structured learning to enhance reading skills. This blog delves into how fluency affects comprehension and how specific educational programs can support learners in becoming proficient readers.

Understanding Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is the ability to read text not only accurately but also quickly and with proper expression. This skill is crucial as it directly influences comprehension by allowing readers to focus less on decoding words and more on understanding the text’s meaning. Fluent readers recognize words and comprehend them simultaneously, making reading a more enjoyable and effective experience.

The three core components of fluency are:

• Accuracy : Correctly reading words in a text.
• Speed : Maintaining an effective rate of reading, which does not necessarily mean reading as fast as possible but at a pace that supports comprehension.
• Prosody : The rhythm and intonation of reading that contribute to understanding the text’s emotions and implications.

The Role of Science of Reading in Enhancing Fluency

The science of reading curriculum is foundational in teaching students not just to read but to read well. It encompasses systematic phonics and other evidence-based strategies that contribute to strong reading skills. These methodologies ensure that students not only learn to decode words but also develop fluency and comprehension seamlessly.

A well-rounded science of reading program focuses on:

• Phonemic Awareness : Understanding and manipulating the sounds in words.
• Phonics : Connecting sounds with letters or groups of letters.
• Fluency : Developing the ability to read smoothly and expressively.
• Vocabulary : Expanding and understanding words.
• Comprehension : Understanding and interpreting what is read.

Impact of Fluency on Reading Comprehension

Increased fluency is linked to better reading comprehension because it allows the brain to allocate resources to understanding the text rather than decoding it. As fluency develops, readers can identify themes, make inferences, and connect ideas across the text more effectively. Educational research shows that fluency training can lead to significant gains in overall academic performance, particularly in reading comprehension. To support these outcomes, integrating  science of reading resources into fluency training programs can provide students with a comprehensive toolkit that enhances both their reading speed and comprehension skills.

Science of Reading Program s and Resources

Effective science of reading intervention programs are designed to target all aspects of reading development, including fluency. These programs use a blend of instructional techniques to build fluency, such as:

• Repeated Reading : Students read the same text multiple times until they reach a level of fluency.
• Choral Reading : Students read along in unison with others.
• Performance Reading : Students practice reading material in preparation for reading it aloud.

Programs that incorporate the science of reading curriculum provide essential resources that support educators in implementing these strategies effectively.

Implementing Science of Reading Strategies

For educators looking to incorporate the science of reading strategies into their classrooms, here are some practical tips:

• Integrate fluency exercises into daily reading practices.
• Use assessments to identify specific fluency needs in students.
• Provide a variety of materials at appropriate reading levels to encourage practice.

Fluency is more than just reading quickly; it is a fundamental skill that underpins comprehensive reading comprehension. By adopting science of reading programs, educators can provide students with the tools they need to read efficiently and understand deeply. The journey toward fluency might be challenging, but with the right resources and strategies, it is indeed rewarding.

This approach not only adheres to current educational research but also aligns with the science of reading curriculum and related resources designed to enhance educational outcomes through improved reading skills.

The Best Way to Teach Reading Is Proven — What Mississippi, Colorado Get Right

This is the second piece in a two-part series that tracks Texas’ attempts to adopt the science of reading over 25 years. The lessons learned in this series are relevant to the many states who have adopted — or are attempting to adopt — the science of reading in schools. Read the first piece here .

Texas lawmakers passed a measure at the end of their regular 2023 session that helped move the state forward in its effort to improve reading outcomes. HB 1605 includes several elements, including creating a process and incentives for districts to purchase high quality instructional materials approved by the State Board of Education. Importantly, it also bans the use of three-cueing, an ineffective instructional practice commonly used in balanced literacy that teaches young readers to rely on visual and meaning cues to guess a word.

Research tells us that early readers need, instead, to learn how letters and sounds work together to create words . Thanks to HB 1605, three-cueing can no longer be used in classrooms or taught in teacher preparation programs, an incremental step toward improving reading outcomes.

The word “incremental” is key here. Texas policymakers have been trying to improve reading rates for decades, from 1996’s Texas Reading Initiative, and 2019’s HB 3, which created “Reading Academies” to train teachers and principals . But Texas has not had the single-minded focus that states like Mississippi have used to improve reading outcomes for all students.

Support The 74's year-end campaign. Make a tax-exempt donation now.

What’s more, Texas legislators missed an opportunity this spring to approve a deeper overhaul of reading instruction in Texas classrooms. Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, proposed legislation that would have required schools and districts to teach reading based on the five elements of the science of reading . The bill stalled during the session, but one element survived in HB 1605— a ban on three-cueing, a reading instruction method that encourages students to rely on context clues like repetitive sentence patterns, the first letter of a word, and pictures as they learn to read.

As Texas legislators look forward to the 2025 session, they have an opportunity to create a comprehensive policy that ensures all students receive research-based instruction — and remove ineffective strategies like balanced literacy from Texas classrooms. Such a policy needs to include support for educators and accountability for change — along with giving districts access to high quality instructional materials and early screeners.

Success takes more than passing a law. The hardest work comes next.

That lesson is important for Texas and any other state seeking to improve reading instruction. States that devote serious attention to improving reading outcomes — Mississippi and Colorado , for example — excel in implementing change after a strong policy is signed into law. They focus on:

• Insisting upon the use of research-based reading principles — the science of reading — in classroom instruction and in curriculum and materials;
• Providing a culture of accountability to ensure change happens and an infrastructure of support so that educators are able to make the needed changes;
• Ensuring schools of education and teacher training programs understand and embrace the science of reading so that new teachers are ready to teach reading well;
• Working with parents and community leaders to communicate clearly about the changes and to champion effective reading strategies; and
• Sticking to these fundamentals even when results do not improve overnight.

Research-Based Lessons from the Magnolia State

Texas can learn from Mississippi the absolute importance of relentlessly embracing research in improving student reading. Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act requires all students receive instruction based on the science of reading. Classrooms must use research-based instruction and materials. And aspiring elementary school teachers must pass a foundational reading test before receiving a state license.

After legislators passed that law, state education officials, led by Carey Wright, the Mississippi superintendent of education from 2013-2022, and Kymyona Burk , then literacy director at the Mississippi Department of Education, got busy implementing the law.

They deployed reading coaches trained in science of reading to the lowest performing schools. Coaches were assigned to classrooms to work with teachers a few days a week for the entire school year, building relationships with instructors and providing consistent job-embedded learning. Research shows that hands-on professional development is most effective for educators. The state still follows that strategy.

The state similarly provided a training program, Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling ,– so that sitting educators could learn and practice the science of reading. Burk traveled the state to help teachers and principals understand LBPA’s requirements. Wright regularly reported on progress to the Legislature.

The strategies have paid off. In 2012, Mississippi ranked 49th out 50 states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in fourth grade reading. In 2022 , Mississippi ranked 21st. 

To be sure, Texas has attempted to embrace some research-backed practices. The Reading Academies legislators authorized in 2019 require K-3 teachers and principals to complete and pass an intensive course on the science of teaching reading. The Texas Education Agency projects that 132,000 teachers will have completed the academies by the end of this year.

But the implementation of the academies has been inconsistent. Districts can hire an outside expert to lead a comprehensive and immersive cohort with live coaching, or they can choose to implement it locally, hiring the cohort leaders themselves. The district may also choose an online-based model versus a more expensive and intensive in-person version. So, while districts have options to best implement given their context, that also creates wide variation in what content is delivered. It is easy for districts immersed in a balanced literacy approach to use the academies to reinforce that flawed philosophy, rather than help teachers and principals understand and implement the science of reading.

Providing a Culture of Accountability and Infrastructure of Support

A key element of Mississippi’s 2013 law is that all the state’s third graders must read at grade level by the end of their school year. If they do not, students cannot enter fourth grade, unless they pass the state’s reading exam during subsequent opportunities or receive an exemption.

This aspect of the law mirrors what Texas passed under then-Gov. George W. Bush in 1999. Texas, however, no longer requires third graders to pass a reading test before advancing to the next grade. Given that only 48% of Texas third graders met the state’s standards on Texas’ 2023 reading exam, legislators and education leaders should study how Mississippi has used this practice to good effect.

Of course, the decision to hold students back is never an easy one. That’s why Wright, Burk and their team worked hard to design — and communicate — a plan that would neither be punishment nor repetition. Instead, they insisted upon retention as intervention. Students who are held back have personalized, specific reading plans and supports designed to ensure the student can develop missing skills.

The state’s use of retention as an intervention has paid off. A recent Boston University study found that Mississippi students who repeated the third grade scored higher on the state reading exams in sixth grade than fellow students who barely passed the third-grade test.

Mississippi’s requirement that aspiring elementary school teachers pass a Foundation of Reading test before receiving a state license is another part of the state’s culture of accountability. The test not only impacts who gets credentialed, but the exam informs the state which schools lag in preparing candidates.

Accountability plays a key role as well in Colorado’s effort to improve reading instruction. The state’s Reading to Ensure Academic Development Act emphasizes the need for teachers to be proficient in the science of reading, channels resources to students below proficiency in the science of reading, and sets district reporting requirements to hold schools accountable.

For example, districts must provide teachers at least 45 hours of training in the science of reading. And starting in the 2024-2025 budget cycle, districts must show proof to the state that principals and administrators have passed the evidence-based training.

What’s more, districts must screen K-3 students to assess any reading deficits. They must also report to the state the number of students with significant reading deficiencies and their progress in reading.

In a report released in June, NCTQ found that only 27% of Texas’ 51 preparation programs adequately provide training in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, and offer little-to-no instruction that contradicts research-based practices.

The organization also reported that 20 of the state’s 51 programs teach multiple techniques or approaches that contradict proven research. Only three schools —Houston Baptist University, Texas A&M-Texarkana, and Sul Ross State University — earned an A+ for their use of the science of reading.

As NCTQ concluded , better teacher preparation will lead to more students learning to effectively read.

Colorado certainly has focused on better preparation after state lawmakers insisted upon it. The state created strong teacher preparation standards, a rigorous licensure test, and assistance helping preparation programs instruct prospective teachers in the science of reading.

In Colorado, NCTQ found , teacher preparation programs used an average of 4.6 of those five elements. That was the highest score of any state and beat the national average of 2.6. NCTQ also reported that 11 of the state’s 16 schools of education received an A or A+ on the organization’s scorecard for effectively preparing educators to teach reading.

What’s more, Colorado requires all teacher preparation programs meet state standards before becoming fully licensed. Otherwise, the State Board of Education will sanction the program until its reading coursework improves.

Texas and other states can learn from this model. NCTQ found that while Texas requires a licensure test for reading instructors, it recommends that the state requires pre-K through fifth-grade teachers pass a licensure test that aligns with scientifically-based reading instruction. The organization also recommends the state publish the passing rates for those tests.

Working with Parents and Community Leaders to Champion Effective Reading Strategies

Here, too, Texas and others should learn from Colorado, Minnesota and Mississippi in giving parents the information and tools to effectively use their voice.

Colorado’s READ initiative calls upon schools to provide parents regular, recurring updates about the progress of interventions their students might receive. That kind of information matters. Parents need data before they can sound off.

In Minnesota, the National Parents Union organized across several groups to engage parents, business leaders and educators to push the state to adopt a science of reading approach. This summer, their efforts paid off when Gov. Tim Walz signed the READ Act, which requires the use of high-quality screeners, research-based curriculum, better information for parents and provides resources to train educators on the science of reading. Balanced literacy is pervasive in Minnesota classrooms, and reading scores fell sharply in the pandemic and have not recovered.

In Mississippi, Kymyona Burk and others within the state’s education department traveled the state to talk with educators and parents about what the law means for children and to clearly outline the roles and responsibilities for educators and parents. This focused on communications was intentional: to inform parents and teachers and to enlist them as champions of quality reading instruction.

Mississippi also benefited from the commitment of Jim Barksdale, a Mississippi native who previously served as Netscape’s CEO. His $100 million gift to create the Barksdale Reading Institute helped state leaders spread understanding about the importance of the science of reading.

To be sure, Texas students have champions like the Katy Literacy Coalition , which advocates for the science of reading in an affluent suburban district outside of Houston. Likewise, the Parent Shield organization that Trenace Dorsey-Hollins founded in Fort Worth is driving an important conversation in that city about reading instruction, especially in disadvantaged communities. The Fort Worth Education Partnership is working across the community to help parents understand precisely where their children stand in their reading proficiencies. But there is not a statewide advocate ensuring that Texas does this right for every child, in every classroom across the state.

Sticking to These Fundamentals Even If Results Don’t Improve Overnight

Scores on the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress reading exam show that Colorado fourth graders dipped slightly lower than their results on the 2019 NAEP reading exam. That was not unusual. Most states declined . None showed an increase. Still, Colorado’s fourth graders scored significantly higher than the national average.

The state’s eighth grade reading scores were similar. They slightly declined for Colorado eighth graders , as they did in many states. Still, Colorado eighth graders scored higher than the national average.

Mississippi’s results tell a similar story for the state’s fourth graders . Their scores beat the national average, even though they declined from the 2019 NAEP reading exam. And those fourth-grade scores continued a longer upward trajectory. The fourth-grade performance in 2022 showed an increase of eight points from 2011.

The good news is that Brown University researchers found that South Carolina, Iowa, Mississippi and Tennessee have now recovered from or exceeded COVID-related declines in reading. Most other states did not experience that same progress. The improvements were attributed to each state’s focus on improved reading instruction as well as a faster return to in-person learning.

The lesson for Texans — and anyone in a state taking on this work — is that progress takes time. And sometimes it is uneven. It takes persistence for all of the needed changes to line up in ways that change student outcomes.

Success requires committing to the research-based approach to reading, unequivocally. All ideas are not good ones when it comes to teaching reading, and it matters to say that out loud. There are many open questions in education, but how to best teach reading is mercifully not one of them. Education has no shortage of fads and shiny new things, implemented poorly, that seasoned educators can just ignore or wait out. The science of reading can’t be one.

Texas is poised to make an incredible impact on its young people if it figures out how to teach reading consistently well. Nearly 6 million students are enrolled in Texas public schools — about 60% of those children are economically disadvantaged and nearly 22% are English language learners. 

Creating 6 million strong readers means giving 6 million children the ability to learn and navigate their futures.

Disclosure: Anne Wicks served as an advisor to the Highland Park Literacy Coalition, a parent organization which advocated for Highland Park ISD to eliminate balanced literacy and to embrace the science of reading. The Texas district announced that change in the spring of 2022.