The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Little Books to be small for general reading achievement, and no studies meeting WWC standards addressed alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension. → WWC Intervention Report: Little Books 2007

Evidence¶

WWC Intervention Report: Little Books 2007¶

WWC Intervention Report: Little Books. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q2 · i? · review · r?

WWC extent-of-evidence categorization based on one study (Phillips et al., 1990) with 6 schools and 314 students in the general reading achievement domain. Appendix A5 lists 0 studies, 0 schools, and 0 students for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Little Books to be small for general reading achievement. No studies that met WWC standards with or without reservations addressed alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — related
• No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small — related
• The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain — related
• Evidence extent for Voyager is moderate to large for alphabetics and small for comprehension, with no qualifying studies of fluency or general reading achievement — related