The evidence base for Open Court Reading© is thin: of 185 identified studies, only two met WWC group design standards, and none met standards for alphabetics or reading fluency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The WWC identified 185 studies of Open Court Reading©, reviewed 29, and only one RCT and one quasi-experiment met group design standards, together including 1,113 beginning readers in grades 1–3 in six states. → Open Court Reading© 2014 q2 i? No studies met WWC standards in the alphabetics or reading fluency domains, so the report does not address effectiveness for those domains. → Open Court Reading© 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Open Court Reading© 2014¶

Open Court Reading©. (2014). WWC Intervention Report: Beginning Reading, Updated October 2014. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/347

q2 · i? · review · r3

A systematic review of the intervention literature against the Beginning Reading topic-area protocol. The article reports that 27 studies failed group design standards, one failed single-case standards, and 155 did not meet eligibility criteria; the two included studies covered 1,113 beginning readers in six states.

"The WWC identified 185 studies that investigated the effects of Open Court Reading© on the reading skills of beginning readers."

Open Court Reading© 2014 (2)¶

Open Court Reading©. (2014). WWC Intervention Report: Beginning Reading, Updated October 2014. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/347

q2 · i? · review · r3

Domain-coverage finding from the review's effectiveness summary: the two qualifying studies reported findings only in general reading achievement and comprehension, leaving alphabetics and reading fluency without studies meeting standards.

"There were no studies that meet standards in the two other domains, so this intervention report does not report on the effectiveness of Open Court Reading© for those domains."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — related
• Open Court Reading© has potentially positive effects on general reading achievement for beginning readers, with a small extent of evidence — related
• 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 EIR® is small: only one of seven reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — related
• Open Court Reading© has potentially positive effects on comprehension for beginning readers in grades 1–3, with a small extent of evidence — related
• The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension — related