Advertisement

PROSPECTS

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 167–180 | Cite as

An evidence-based model for early-grade reading programmes

  • John P. Comings
Open File

Abstract

This article proposes a model for design of early-grade reading programmes that is based on research and the implementation of research findings. The model has three components: (1) schools should provide instruction in a language their students speak and understand; (2) teachers should employ instruction that is consistent with the current evidence-based theory of how children acquire and improve reading skills; and (3) students should spend sufficient time on task in direct instruction and reading practice to make meaningful progress. For each component, the article describes the ways in which reading programmes are trying to implement that concept and the evidence that supports those approaches. The article concludes with ways this programme model could inform policy and be improved by further research.

Keywords

Early-grade reading Education programme design Learning Reading skills 

References

  1. Abadzi, H. (2005). Efficient learning for the poor: Insights from the frontier of cognitive neuroscience. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M. A. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utner, B., Diallo, Y., Heugh, K., & Wolff, H. (2006). Optimizing learning and education in Africa—The language factor: A stock-taking research on mother tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: ADEA, GTZ and UIE. http://www.adeanet.org/biennial-2006/doc/document/B3_1_MTBLE_en.pdf.
  4. Al-Samarrai, S., Bennell, P., & Colclough, C. (2002). From projects to SWAPs: An evaluation of British aid to primary schooling 1988–2001. London: Department for International Development. http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=897.
  5. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2010). Pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  8. Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2006). Addressing absence. Journal of Economic Persepctives, 20(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Benson, C. (2008). Summary overview: Mother tongue-based education in multi-lingual contexts. In UNESCO (Ed.), Improving the quality of mother tongue-based literacy and learning: Case studies from Asia, Africa and South America. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, M. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29(1), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comings, J. (1995). Literacy skill retention in adult students in developing countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 15(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cui, Y. (2008). L2 proficiency and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold hypothesis. Paper presented at the Language and Literacy Graduate Student Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 27 February. https://web.uvic.ca/~literacy/UVic%20Language%20and%20Literacy%202008%20Conference%20Proceedings/15.%20L2%20Proficiency%20and%20L2%20Reading%20-%20Consolidating%20the%20Linguistic%20Threshold%20Hypothesis.pdf.
  15. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.Google Scholar
  17. Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. NCES 2006-469. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  19. DOE [U.S. Department of Education] (2006 and 2007). Shining stars. Readers series. Washington, DC: DOE. http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/publications.html.
  20. EDC [Education Development Center] (2011). Philippines: Teachers and students reading better. Waltham, MA: EDC. http://idd.edc.org/about/news/philippines-teachers-and-students-reading-better-together.
  21. Garet, M., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., … Silverberg, M. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084030.pdf.
  22. Goldenberg, C. (2012). Research on English learner instruction. In M. Calderon (Ed.), Breaking through: Effective instruction and assessment for reading English learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Lowerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository texts? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Oral reading fluency: 90 years of measurement. Technical Report no. 33. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports.
  25. He, F., Linden, L., & MacLeod, M. (2008). How to teach English in India: Testing the relative productivity of instruction methods within the Pratham English Language Education Program. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  26. Hovens, M. (2002). Bilingual education in West Africa: Does it work? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDevitt, D. (1998). How effective is the cascade as a method for disseminating ideas? A case study of Botswana. Independent Journal of Education Development, 18(5), 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. NRP [National Reading Panel] (2000a). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  29. NRP (2000b). Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  30. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). Boston, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Piper, B. (2010). Kenya early grade reading assessment findings report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.Google Scholar
  33. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Rackham, N. (2001). The coaching controversy. Purcellville, VA: Huthwaite, Inc. http://www.margiehartley.com/home/wp-content/uploads/file/Coaching_Controversy.pdf.
  35. RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R and D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Science and Technology Institute, RAND Education.Google Scholar
  36. Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Mehta, P. (1999). The dimensionality of phonological awareness: An application of item response theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slavin, R., Madden, N., & Calderon, M. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, M., Brady, J., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation K-3 tool. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  39. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. In K. E. Stanovich (Ed.), Progress in understanding reading (pp. 21–43). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  43. USAID [United States Agency for International Development] (2011a). USAID education strategy 2011–2015. Washington, DC: USAID. http://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/USAID_Education%20Strategy_2011-2015.pdf.
  44. USAID (2011b). USAID evaluation policy. Washington, DC: USAID. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf.
  45. Walter, S. L., & Chuo, K. G. (2011). The Kom experimental mother tongue education project report for 2011. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO IBE 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for International EducationUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations