Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis
Educational Research Review
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., et al. (2011).
Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-26.
This systematic review investigates the impact of reading intervention programs and reading service delivery models for elementary-aged struggling readers.
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education
<p>An earlier version of this review, containing additional supporting information not in this update, is available from:</p>
<ul>
<li>Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., et al. (2009). <i>Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best Evidence Synthesis</i>. Baltimore (MD): Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_jun_02_2010.pdf" title="http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_jun_02_2010.pdf" class="ApplyClass">http://bestevidence.org/</a></li>
</ul>
1970-2009
Experimental studies with randomized or matched treatment and control groups
97
Reading programs targeting phonics had a positive impact on children's reading outcomes regardless of service delivery model. Larger effect sizes were reported for phonics-based treatments (ES = .62) compared to other reading programs (e.g., TEACH, Reading Recovery; ES = .23).
Thirty-nine studies examined the impact of one-to-one reading programs provided by teachers (20 studies), paraprofessionals (11 studies) or volunteers (8 studies). Mean effect sizes for all providers were positive, however, teachers were more effective (ES = .62) than paraprofessionals/volunteers (ES = .24) when providing structured and intensive reading programs (e.g., Reading Recovery Program) to children identified as struggling readers.
Thirty-six studies examined the reading outcomes of struggling readers receiving services in small group settings (20 studies) or classroom-based instruction (16 studies). The majority of interventions were named reading programs focusing on phonics; the overall mean effect size was .31 for small group interventions and .56 for classroom-based interventions. Small group interventions were less effective when compared to one-to-one instruction, regardless of provider.
Fourteen studies examined the use of computer-assisted instruction to improve the reading skills of struggling readers. Minimal effects were noted (ES = .09).
