Using Readable English Leads to Reading Gains For Rural Elementary Students: An Experimental Study

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Design

This research study (N = 855) was a multisite, experimental design blocked by grade that encompassed fifty-five teachers at ten rural schools located in three rural districts in both Indiana and Tennessee. Three schools were assigned to the typical practice condition, four schools were assigned to the intervention condition, and three schools had grade levels of students assigned to both condition groups. At schools participating in both typical practice and intervention conditions, three teachers who taught multiple grade levels taught students in both study conditions. Average annual enrollment for the ten participating schools was 1,400 students, with between 49.3% and 59.5% of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch (Kids Count Data Center, 2022). Students with limited English proficiency represented less than 2% of the total student populations of participating schools and were excluded from the study. Grade levels of Reading/English Language Arts classes within each school were assigned to either the intervention or typical practice condition. Special Education teachers followed grade level research design blocking to provide either Readable English instruction to their students in the intervention condition or they continued with the usual instruction for students assigned to the typical practice condition. A priori power analyses indicated that sample sizes per grade level treatment condition needed to include at least 105 participants to be sensitive enough to find moderate effect sizes with significance of α = 0.05. These sample size goals were met, and student demographics are described in Table 1. [Table 1 near here]

Chi-square tests of categorical variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity) showed no significant differences in student characteristics between the treatment and typical practice group. Independent sample t tests were conducted to evaluate group equivalence for pretest measures. Analyses indicated there were no significant differences between the treatment and typical practice groups on pre-test WRMT-3 measures. However, there were statistically significant differences between the groups on all three EasyCBM pre-test measures and these were controlled for during data analysis.

Attrition Analysis

Of the 1023 students who began the study, 855 (84.6%) completed both pre- and post-test assessments. Comparisons of demographic and pre-test scores of the 168 attritors in the control and treatment conditions showed no significant differences in any variable between the students who left the study and those who completed post-testing. There was no significant difference between the number of students who left the study in the control (n = 87) and treatment (n = 81) conditions. Students were excluded if they transitioned from in-person to online instruction or were not in attendance to complete either pre- or posttesting.

Intervention Training and Supervision

Teachers received initial and ongoing instruction in how to teach the Readable English program, and teachers were encouraged to use the conversion tool to convert a variety of core curriculum content from standard English into text with the Readable English mark-up. At schools using Readable English, both the general and special education teachers used Readable English as their regular Reading or English Language Arts (ELA) instruction. At the beginning of the school year all teachers received two full days of intervention implementation training, and teachers assigned to Readable English intervention condition groups were provided with an intervention coach to monitor instructional fidelity and to assure proper program pacing. Coaches provided teachers with weekly lesson plans and teaching guide manuals that included scope and sequence for each phase of the intervention. Both condition groups introduced main lesson ideas in whole group settings, before students received direct instruction in small groups with the teacher. During small group instruction, students worked in group workstations when not working with the teacher.

Intervention Fidelity

To monitor instructional fidelity coaches and teachers in the Readable English intervention condition group checked in either virtually or in-person every week school was in session (i.e., twelve to sixteen times). Coaches modeled lessons and observed teacher instruction with students, later providing feedback and encouragement. Teachers were encouraged to use the conversion tool for cross curricular reading assignments and were provided multiple demonstrations of both how to use the conversion tool and practical exemplars. Coaches monitored teacher progress through the Readable English intervention for appropriate pacing, and to be certain teachers were using all relevant intervention materials and practices. Teachers in the typical practice control group received support from districts’ academic coaches to assure district scope and sequence guidelines for Amplify CKLA were followed.

Description of Readable English Intervention Condition

Readable English uniquely targets reading fluency skills deficits and provides individualized reading scaffolding without significant teacher involvement. Rigorous word and nonword decoding skills practice tasks and games are integrated into the computer-based program that guides the students’ individual learning paths. Students practice reading increasingly complex levels of text (i.e., connected text, passages, narratives, and nonfiction works), with integrated checks for student reading comprehension. Various grade level text is available online in the student eReader, or teachers or students can choose any other text they want to read. The Readable English mark-up makes words completely phonetic in three ways. First, letters that do not follow their primary standard English pronunciation are marked with a glyph like a diacritical mark that cues the student to the letter’s accurate pronunciation. Second, letters that do not make a sound are visible but are grayed out to indicate their silence; and third, pronunciation breaks are indicated by a dot to support reading of multisyllable words (see Figure 1). [Figure 1 near here] [Readable English Overview video near here]

During the six weeks of Phase One of Readable English, students learned the twenty-one glyphs through songs, rhymes, movement, and games. Phase Two (which ranged from six to twelve weeks) focused on decoding, spelling, and fluency skills using interactive worksheets, games, and text through teacher led small group and student independent workstations. All activities were performed either on the computer or printed out by the teacher and used independently of the computer. During Phase Two students began using the Readable English conversion tool to read core curriculum. Teachers were encouraged to convert core content from across the curriculum, including books, worksheets, and project instructions, into the Readable English mark-up. Phase Three (ten plus weeks) built on the fluency skills learned in Phases One and Two and focused on reading comprehension, writing skills, and vocabulary building.

The Conversion Tool. The Readable English mark-up makes text transparently decodable. This eliminates the need for students to guess at word pronunciation, though it does not eliminate the guessing habit many students develop as a compensatory reading strategy. The conversion tool can convert text that has been cut and pasted from the computer screen, as well as a wide variety of file types (e.g., Word documents, PDF text, PDF image, JPG, PNG, TIFF, TXT, HTML), so most types of text can be converted to the Readable English mark-up. Teachers can convert materials and add them to the students’ individual eReader libraries, along with vocabulary word lists. Students can add and delete words to their personal vocabulary list. These functions make it possible to scaffold cross-curricular content to students’ independent reading levels and incorporate vocabulary from math, science, and social studies with ELA material.

Figure 1.  

Figure 1.  

The conversion tool gives students autonomy to individualize their own reading materials. They can choose what text to convert and either print it or read it online. E-reader setting options include font size, word spacing, letter spacing, line spacing, font color and background color of text. Students choose whether they want to view silent letters greyed out. The Readable English mark-up can be turned off for the entire text or for individual words the student has learned to read. Right clicking on a word turns the Readable English mark-up on or off. Left clicking on a word pulls up a definition, and options to hear the word read, add it to a vocabulary list, or translate the word into one of forty other languages. The student can bookmark the last page read.

Full overview video of how to use the Readable English conversion tool.

eReader Functionality starts at 2:30.

Readable English© (2021). Used with permission.

Using the conversion tool, students choose what to read and how they want to read it, and teachers can source materials from their favorite projects, textbooks, websites, programs, etc. Teachers can integrate cross-curricular content and provide a high level of individualized student support many children need read grade level curriculum to build academic vocabulary and expand knowledge bases. The Readable English curriculum targets multiple reading skills components and multidirectionally support all currently defined reading processes, providing important skills practice for students with a range of reading skills deficits.

Description of Typical Practice Amplify CKLA Condition

Teachers used Amplify CKLA and followed district grade level scope and sequences. This program offers foundation reading skills assessments (DIBELS 8) in a student dashboard so teachers can monitor student reading progress. Reading passages, worksheets, and skills games are available for online learning. Amplify CKLA had been used by all the study schools for a minimum of three years and includes activities designed to teach, explicitly and systematically, multiple literacy skills involved in reading fluency and comprehension. Students in both condition groups received equal instructional time.

Teacher Test Administration Training

Teachers in both the treatment and control conditions received training in how to properly administer EasyCBM reading benchmarks. All teachers were reminded of benchmark testing windows and individually advised on missing student data during each testing window. To ameliorate potential Hawthorne effects, all teachers in both conditions were provided student benchmark score reports. All teachers and administrators also had equal access to the EasyCBM student scores portal.

Measures

EasyCBM. The EasyCBM Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Basic Reading benchmark assessment (University of Oregon, 2008) is a twenty-five-item group administered online test measuring comprehension skills of nonfiction and informational text. A sixty-second individually administered test, Passage Reading Fluency measures reading rate as words read correctly per minute (WCPM) and reading accuracy. Using these two metrics a reading fluency percentile is calculated. The benchmark tests are grade-based, normed, and delivered during the Fall, Winter, and Spring testing windows. Internal consistency for the CCSS Basic Reading test is high, with a median Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 and median split-half reliability of 0.76 and 0.83 across all measures (Guerreiro, Alonzo, & Tindal 2014). Researchers chose the EasyCBM for its ease of use across multiple grades and the analytics available to teachers and parents. All students in all schools were assessed with the EasyCBM benchmarks. The Fall benchmark was used as a universal screener to determine which students might have significant reading skills deficits.

Because students reading well-below grade level may make reading skills gains that are not reflected in tests beyond their independent reading level, additional and more sensitive assessments were used. Students scoring at or below the 30^th percentile on either the EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency or CCSS Basic Reading test were further assessed using the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3^rd Ed. ([WRMT-3] Woodcock, 2011) Passage Comprehension and Oral Reading Fluency subtests.

WRMT-3. The WRMT-3 is a battery of individually administered assessments measuring reading achievement skills of students in pre-kindergarten to grade twelve. Tests have grade-specific start points and items are increasingly difficult until the discontinue rule is met. Study participants were assessed with the WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency and Passage Comprehension subtests. Internal consistency age-based reliability for both subtests range from 0.83 to 0.95. Alternate form reliability is very good for students aged eight to thirteen years, with comprehension ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 and fluency ranging from 0.91 to 0.84 (Woodcock, 2011). The research team chose the WRMT-3 for its utility for multiple audiences. School administrators and teachers could evaluate individual student progress by percentile and grade level growth, while the test also generates the standard scores and growth scale values needed for rigorous analysis of group growth. Using only the fluency and comprehension subtests kept the testing time to minimum and allowed schools to evaluate reading growth of students with skills deficits for future Response-to-Intervention placement.

RESULTS

EasyCBM Reading Skills Growth

Passage Reading Fluency

All grade level intervention conditions outperformed typical practice conditions, demonstrating meaningful and statistically significant pre-and post-test differences on all measures of reading fluency and comprehension (see Table 2). The EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency is comprised of measures of reading rate and reading accuracy. Students in the intervention practice significantly outperformed students in the typical practice condition at each individual grade level. There was a moderate effect size for WCPM reading rate for the combined grade levels with the biggest disparity between conditions seen in fourth grade where students in the Readable English intervention condition averaged 17 more words read correctly per minute out of mean 145 WCPM than did peers in the typical practice condition (see Figure 2 for reading rate). [Table 2 near here] [Figure 2 near here]

Figure 2. Mean Change in EasyCBM Passage Reading Rate Measured by the Number of Words Read Correctly per Minute.

Figure 2. Mean Change in EasyCBM Passage Reading Rate Measured by the Number of Words Read Correctly per Minute.

Reading accuracy of all grades combined demonstrated a moderate effect size with students in the intervention condition reading 3.1% more accurately at the end of the school year than students in the typical practice condition who improved only 0.7% (See Figure 3 for reading accuracy). Third grade showed the most improvement in reading accuracy with the intervention group reading about 5.0% more accurately than students in the typical practice condition. Reading accuracy and reading rate are vital to good comprehension. Misreading several words out of every hundred words wrong can significantly change the meaning of the text. Two main factors of good reading include quick and accurate oral reading. Other important, but unmeasured factors in this study include prosody, word recognition, and vocabulary knowledge. While all grades, both individually and when grouped, showed superior reading skills gains for the Readable English condition, no single grade outperformed another. [Figure 3 near here]

Figure 3. Mean Change EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency Accuracy Measured in Percentage of Words Read Correctly Per Minute.

Figure 3. Mean Change EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency Accuracy Measured in Percentage of Words Read Correctly Per Minute.

Significant and large main effects for WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency were found F(5,187 = 7.49, p = <.001, partial η² = .167. There were moderately strong main effects of grade F(2,187) = 7.44, p = <.001, partial η² = .074 and of treatment condition F(1,187) = 21.67, p = <.001, partial η² = .104. Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed a significant interaction of Oral Reading Fluency and grade level, but only between grades three and five. This follows expectations for typical fluency growth, as younger grades show steeper reading rate growth with growth of WCPM gradually leveling off around grade six. Typically developing readers express larger WCPM at grade three and smaller WCPM gains in grades five and up as text complexity increases and instructional focus shifts from learning-to-read-fluently to reading-fluently-for-comprehension. The gains in reading rate and accuracy experienced by students in the Readable English condition are considerable and will give exponential word reading volume dividends to students able to read text faster and more accurately going forward.

CCSS Basic Reading Comprehension

Students in the Readable English intervention surpassed the reading comprehension of students in the typical practice condition with a moderate effect size. Post hoc linear regression of combined grades showed that improvements in EasyCBM Passage Fluency reading rate and accuracy accounted for 14% of the improvement in CCSS Reading Comprehension raw scores (F(3,851 = 47.01), p<0.001, adjusted R²= 0.14). Combining the three grades for an overarching analysis showed that EasyCBM CCSS Basic Reading comprehension was meaningfully improved for the intervention group with a small effect size and large observed power (see Figure 4). Examination of CCSS Basic Reading comprehension growth by grade level shows the largest difference in mean change between groups lies with fifth grade (Δ_M= 1.7) where there was a moderate effect size (Hedge’s g = 0.6) compared to students in the typical practice condition who showed net learning loss on this measure (Δ_M= -0.4). Figure 4 shows the reading comprehension growth of raw scores for both condition groups. [Figure 4 near here]

Figure 4. Mean Raw Score Change in EasyCBM CCSS Basic Reading Comprehension.

Figure 4. Mean Raw Score Change in EasyCBM CCSS Basic Reading Comprehension.

WRMT-3 Reading Skills Growth

Oral Reading Fluency

Students in the Readable English condition meaningfully and significantly outperformed students in the typical practice condition on Oral Reading Fluency (see Figure 5). Table 3 shows pre-test and posttest means, change in means, t test results, and effect sizes, while Figure 5 displays outcomes graphically. The overall result is that students in the Readable English condition experienced meaningful gains in reading rate and accuracy. Multilevel ANOVA showed there was not a significant effect of grade level on Oral Reading Fluency scores (F(2, 190) = 0.66; p = 0.519). That is an unusual finding because we would expect typically to see oral reading fluency growth to slow as students engage with increasingly complex text. Scatter plots show that participants in both condition groups had plenty of room for fluency growth, and students in the Readable English condition experienced significant fluency growth at all grade levels (see Table 3). [Table 3 near here] [Figure 5 near here]

Figure 5. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency Measured by Growth Scale Values.

Figure 5. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency Measured by Growth Scale Values.

Significant and large main effects for WRMT-3 Passage Comprehension were found F(5,187 = 6.55, p = <.001, partial η² = .149, meaning participants in the Readable English condition had meaningful comprehension growth relative to students in the typical practice condition (see Figure 6). There was also a large main effect of treatment condition F(1,187) = 20.69, p = <.001, partial η² = .100 and a small effect of grade level F(1,187) = 3.53, p = .031, partial η² = .36. The interaction of treatment condition and grade level was significant with a moderate effect size F(2, 187) = 4.09, p = .018, partial η² = .042. Pairwise comparisons by grade show that the only significant interaction was the difference between grades four and five t= 2.58, p = .011, negating the probability of a true interaction between treatment condition and grade level. Students in all three grade levels in the Readable English condition made substantial gains in reading comprehension with growth increasing incrementally from third through fifth grades, and the analyses showed these gains were statistically significant, large, and meaningfully improved students’ reading abilities. [Figure 6 near here]

The prior results are analyses of raw scores, growth scale values, and percentages designed to root out the efficacy of the Readable English intervention. Examination of effect sizes, probability, F and t values, and statistical power indicate these findings were statistically significant, and they also represented meaningful educational gains for students.

School leaders, however, want to know if Readable English is powerful enough to help students who are reading below grade level close reading gaps. Teachers want to know “How many grade levels did my students grow?” To answer that question, we calculated the mean change in grade equivalents provided by WRMT-3 to get an idea of grade level growth for students in both condition groups. Table Three shows the mean changes in grade equivalents, while Figures Seven and Eight graph those differences visually. Observed power was adequate for each test, ranging from 0.60 to 0.99. [Figure 7 and Figure 8 near here]

Figure 6. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Passage Reading Comprehension Measured by Growth Scale Values.

Figure 6. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Passage Reading Comprehension Measured by Growth Scale Values.

Figure 7. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency Measured in Grade Levels.Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency subtest. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

Figure 7. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency Measured in Grade Levels.Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency subtest. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

Figure 8. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Passage Reading Comprehension Measured in Grade Levels. Note. PC = Passage Comprehension subtest. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

Figure 8. Mean Change in WRMT-3 Passage Reading Comprehension Measured in Grade Levels. Note. PC = Passage Comprehension subtest. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

The big picture view of grade level growth is that when mean change in grade equivalents for all grades are combined, students who received Readable English instruction outperformed students in the typical practice condition. Combining the grade levels increased the sample size for that analysis so that observed power was strong. Mean changes in grade equivalents for individual grade levels are reported, but the sample sizes are so small that observed power for those tests is weak, and grade three Passage Comprehension is not statistically significant. Prior data all indicate the intervention group realized significant and meaningful reading skills gains compared to the typical practice group. This summary analysis of mean changes in grade equivalents serves only to put those gains into a practical perspective for teachers. Analysis of the WRMT-3 Oral Reading Fluency subtest showed that the combined grades grew approximately ten months in the intervention condition and five months in the typical practice condition. Expected annual growth is ten months, so students receiving Readable English averaged one year’s oral reading fluency growth, while students in the typical practice condition did not. Students in the Readable English condition gained approximately nine months of reading comprehension growth compared to three months gained by students in the typical practice condition. In a year typified by learning loss, improving reading skills by ten months is closing reading gaps.

DISCUSSION

References

1. Alonzo, J., and Anderson, D. (2018). Supplementary report on EasyCBM PRF measures: A follow-up to previous technical reports (Technical Report No. 1806). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. https://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports/.
2. Benjamin, R.M.. Public Health Reports, November-December 2010, 125(6): 784-785. Association of Schools of Public Health. [CrossRef]
3. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., and Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163. [CrossRef]
4. Boulton, D. (n.d.). An Interview: Rick Lavoie – Advocate for children with learning differences and special needs. https://childrenofthecode.org/interviews/lavoie.htm.
5. Cain, K., and Barnes, M. A. (2017) Reading comprehension: What develops and when. In D. Compton, R. Parrila, & K. Cain (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 257-282). John Benjamins. [CrossRef]
6. Cain, K., and Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew Effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience and vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 431-443. [CrossRef]
7. Campbell, S. (2020). Teaching phonics without teaching phonics: Early childhood teachers’ reported beliefs and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(4): 783-814. [CrossRef]
8. Catts, H. W., Compton, D., Tomblin, J. B., and Bridges, M. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. [CrossRef]
9. Cirinio, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059-1086. [CrossRef]
10. Clemens, N. H., Simmons, D., Simmons, L. E., Wang, H., and Kwok, O. (2017). The prevalence of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents struggling with reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 785-798. [CrossRef]
11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. [CrossRef]
12. Eason, S. H., Sabatini, J., Goldberg, L., Bruce, K., and Cutting, L. E. (2013). Examining the relationship between word reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different types of readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 199-223. [CrossRef]
13. Ehri, L. (2015) How children learn to read words. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 293-310). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Ehri, L. C., (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5-21. [CrossRef]
15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., and Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyzes using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. [CrossRef]
16. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., and Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning Disabilities: From identification to intervention (2^nd ed.). Guilford Press.
17. Fogarty, M., Oslund, E., Simmons, D., Davis, J., Simmons, L., Anderson, L., Clemens, N., and Roberts, G. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: A focus on treatment fidelity. Research Into Practice 26(1), 425-449. [CrossRef]
18. Foster, M., A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F., and Franze, S. (2005). A model of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to children’s emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 13-36. [CrossRef]
19. Gabriel, R. (2018). Preparing literacy professionals: The case of dyslexia. Journal of Literacy Research. (50)2, 262-270. [CrossRef]
20. Guerreiro, M., Alonzo, J., and Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the EasyCBM CCSS reading measures grades k-8 (Technical Report No. 1407). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
21. Gilbert, J. K., Goodwin, A. P., Compton, D. L., and Kearns, D. M. (2013). Multisyllabic word reading as a moderator of morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 34–43. [CrossRef]
22. Hart L., and Risley, T. R. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
23. Hoekstra, R., Kiers, H., and Johnson, A. (2012). Are assumptions of well-known statistical techniques checked, and why (not?). Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00137.
24. Jansson, D. (2020). Do I teach what I preach? A study on teachers’ beliefs and classroom practice for reading and reading strategies. (Dissertation: Malmö University Publications. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-33552.
25. Kids Count Data Center. (2022, March 15). Education: Public School Enrollment by State. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/1098-public-school-enrollment.
26. Lesgold, A. M., and Welch-Ross, M., (2012) Improving adult literacy: Options for practice and research. Committee on Learning Sciences: Foundations and Applications to Adolescent and Adult Literacy. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13242.
27. Levine, T., & Hullett, C. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 612-625. [CrossRef]
28. Levesque, K.C., Breadmore, H.L. and Deacon, S.H. (2020). How morphology impacts reading andspelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy development. Journal of Research in Reading. [CrossRef]
29. Levesque, K., Kieffer, M.J. and Deacon, S.H. (2019). Inferring meaning from meaningful parts: The contributions of morphological skills to the development of children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 63 – 80. [CrossRef]
30. Levesque, K.C., Kieffer, M.J. and Deacon, S.H. (2017). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension: Examining mediating factors. Journal of Experimental Child Psycholog, 160, 1 – 20. [CrossRef]
31. Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., and Morris, R. D. (2021). Effective intervention for adolescents with reading disabilities: Combining reading and motivational remediation to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 656-689. [CrossRef]
32. Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., and De Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 263–283. [CrossRef]
33. Moats, L. C., (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers. www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Moats.pdf.
34. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (Project), Educational Testing Service, United States. (2022). NAEP reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education.
35. O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., and Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463. [CrossRef]
36. Onwuegbuzie, A., and Leech, N. (2004). Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 201-230. [CrossRef]
37. Pan, W., & Sass, T. (2020). Potential remediation strategies in the wake of COVID-19 school closures: A review of literature. Georgia Policy Labs. Metro Atlanta Policy Lab for Education. Retrieved from. https://gpl.gsu.edu/download/covid-19-remediation-strategies-literature-review/?wpdmdl=1951&refresh=60f97c40558611626963008.
38. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383. [CrossRef]
39. Perfetti, C. (2010). Decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension: The golden triangle of reading skill. In M. G. McDeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing Reading Research to Life (pp. 291-303). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40. Perfetti, C., and Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22-37. [CrossRef]
41. Readable English. (2021). Technique [infographic]. US Teaching Guide. https://my.readablenglish.com/secure/quickGuides.aspx.
42. Scammacca, N., K., Roberts, G. J., Chloe, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaught, S. R., and Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4-12, 1914—2014. Review of Educational Research. [CrossRef]
43. Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., and Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26-43. [CrossRef]
44. Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., and Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 108-133. [CrossRef]
45. Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S., and Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter: longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 218-229. [CrossRef]
46. Stanovich, K. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 23-55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748659.
47. Stockwell, R., and Minkova, D. (2001). English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press.
48. University of Oregon. (2008). Common core state standards proficient reading (Assessment measures). Available from. www.easycbm.com.
49. University of Oregon. (2008). Passage reading fluency (Assessment measures). Available from. www.easycbm.com.
50. Sullivan., L. M., Weinberg, J., and Keaney, J. F. (2016). Common statistical pitfalls in basic science research. Journal of the American Heart Association, 5(10).
51. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., and Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163-195. [CrossRef]
52. Woodcock, R. W. (2011). “Development,” in Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests Manual. 3^rd Edn. USA: NCS Pearson, 71-103.
53. Worthy, J., Svrcek, N., DalyLesch, A., and Tily, S. (2018). “We know for a fact”: Dyslexia interventionists and the power of authoritative discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(3), 304-334. [CrossRef]
54. Zentall, S. S. (2012). A reading motivation intervention with differential outcomes for students at-risk for reading disabilities, ADHD, and typical comparisons: “Clever is and clever does.” Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 248-259. [CrossRef]