Data support the effectiveness of the multisensory word-study program as a whole class intervention in increasing decoding ability, in developing the ability to correctly encode common phoneme-grapheme spelling patterns, and in increasing automaticity in application of the alphabetic principle through word reading speed while reading in connnected text. However, effects of comprehension instruction in the classroom appear to outweigh the effects of code-based instruction.
Donnell, W. (2007). The effects of multisensory vowel instruction during word work study for third grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 468-471
Effective classroom reading instruction in phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, fluency in word recognition and text processing, construction of meaning, vocabulary, spelling and writing can maximize the probability that all but a very small percentage of students can learn to read on grade level. To address the needs of this small percentage we need to provide additional instruction on the same components in a small-group or one-on-one format. However, research shows that such instruction will need to be more explicit and comprehensive, more intensive, and more supportive than that typically provided by schools.
Foorman, B.A. (2001) Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 203-212
Three distinctive qualities emerged as characteristic of phonics teaching within whole language classrooms. First, teachers assessed and responded to the individual needs of learners. Second, skills were taught within the context of meaningful reading and writing activities to maximize children's application of phonics concepts as they read and wrote. Finally, phonics instruction in whole language classrooms was not confined to the reading program but clearly included a wide range of writing instructional events as children wrote their own texts, conferrred with their teacher, and participated in shared writing and writing demonstrations.
Dahl, K.A. (2000). Phonics teaching and learning in whole language classrooms: new evidence from research. The Reading Teacher. 584-594
Direct phonics instruction is more effective than the whole language technique in the early stages of reading. First graders receiving direct systematic phonics instruction scored higher on reading tests than children instructed in other methods, and maintained those gains through second grade.
Manzo, K. (1997). Study stresses role of early phonics instruction. Education Week
This study suggests that a child's ability to decode words in print influences growth in word knowledge; however, it didn't come to a concrete conclusion. The article ended by saying that young children should be provided with many holistic reading experiences, and they should be encourged to make sense out of everything they read.
Eldredge, J.L. (2001). Causal relationships between phonics, reading comprehension, and vocabulary achievement in the second grade. Journal of Educational Research, 201-214.
Students need to be explicitly taught a phonetically based method to decode unfamiliar words. Several strategies were presented with guidelines for implementation. Because the end goal is comprehension, teachers should consider how individual skills could eventually be linked to the larger process of reading and comprehension.
Boyle, J. (2008). Reading strategies for students with mild disabilities. Intervention in School and Community, 3-9.
Research supports the use of explicit code-based instruction, but it needs to be carefully modified for English Language Learners. The modifications involve the use of facial expressions, visuals, and gestures; providing opportunities for extended talk; and deliberately defining key words in directions, lessons, and reading texts. The instruction should be based in a comprehensive program. Knowledge of the native language will allow teachers to explicitly point out similarities and differences. In regards to comprehension: English Language Learners may comprehend more than they are able to communicate in English; vocabulary is key; background knowledge greatly influences comprehension; and discussion during reading is particularly beneficial.
Manyak, P.B. (2008). Explicit code and comprehension instruction for english learners. The Reading Teacher, 432-434.
This article addressed the literacy needs of English Learners. An emerging finding is that oral proficiency in English is critical for English Learners to learn to read and write well in English; however, there is no reason to wait for language development to start phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. An understanding of the vocabulary of a text is necessary for fluency to develop. This vocabulary instruction can be direct or incidental, but must be accompanied by visuals. English Learners need to have ample time to discuss texts with others to aid comprehension.
Barclay, K. (2007). Research in reading. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 67-69.
This research supports supplemental instruction for first and second graders. Children who received intervention services outperformed children who received only the "status quo." Also, it seems that for the struggling readers in this study, their being part of "something extra" was not a negative labeling practice, but instead an effective way for them to boost their literacy achievement. Students who receive more academic attention simply perform better.
McIntyre, E.J. (2005). Supplemental instruction in early reading: does it matter for struggling readers? The Journal of Educational Research, 99-107.
Supplemental phonics instruction along with successful practice in text reading (regardless of decodability levels of the texts) may be sufficient for a majority of at-risk first graders to reach grade-level in two critical areas of reading - development of word-specific representations in memory and skill in decoding unfamiliar words. Decodable texts do not add value to supplemental tutoring programs, even for students who demonstrate more serious limitations in acquiring print-speech codes. However, accepting these generalizations overlooks an important fact; although effect sizes for the text variable were exceedingly small, the result is essentially a non-difference. This study cannot settle the instructional issue of text decodability.
Jenkins, P.S. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 53-85.
This research looked into a program that offered phonological awareness, phonics training, and fluency work at varying intervention levels. They found that effective, prevention-based early literacy programs for at-risk children should include a scientifically validated reading curriculum including systematic, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Prevention-based programs should include a range of instructional supports varying in instructional intensity to ensure that the varied needs of children are met. Programs should have an efficient, reliable, curriculum-based system of data collection with valid decision rules for moving students in and out of supports as needed. There needs to be a professional development system that is tied directly to classroom practice and includes a careful mixture of hands-on workshops and on-site, ongoing coaching. If these key mechanisms are in place, then instruction for children who are at-risk will be better.
Bursuck, S.M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of a prevention-based model of reading on children who are at risk. Remedial and Special Education, 303-313.
Evidence shows that: directly teaching phonemic awareness and phonics skills are especially effective for struggling readers, small group instruction, comprehension instruction, and reading and re-reading connected text are the best instructional practices. Unfortunately, many Learning Disabled students do not benefit from this type of instruction. The article went on to suggest that universities need to do a better job preparing teachers to utilize these strategies.
Swanson, E. (2008). Observing reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: a synthesis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 115-133.
This article disagrees with statements the National Reading Panel made about reading in the areas of phonemic awareness training, systematic phonics instruction, skills-based approaches, and sustained silent reading.
Krachen, S. (2004). False claims. Educational Leadership, 18-21.
This article argues that older students do not benefit from explicit phonics instruction, rather from knowledgeable teachers who can scaffold learning. It is the contention of the author that all instruction should focus on the two questions: Does it help students read better? Does it make students want to read more? The author acknowledges the need for phonetic instruction at the beginning levels of reading, but feels it is a waste of the student's time once a 3rd grade reading level has been attained.
Ivey, G.A. (2004). Phonics instruction for older students? just say no. Educational Leadership, 35-39.
The authors looked at three different methods of teaching words: interspersal drill, phonic analysis using word boxes, and traditional drill and practice. The research shows that the quickest way for children to learn new words was through traditional drill and practice with flashcards; however, the most sustaining and useful method was word analysis.
Schmidgall, M.A. (2007). Comparison of phonic analysis and whole word-reading on first graders' cumulative words read and cumulative reading rate: an extension in examining instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 319-332.