The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read Well® to be small for both reading achievement and English language development for English language learners. → Read Well® 2010

Evidence¶

Read Well® 2010¶

Read Well®. (2010). WWC Intervention Report. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. http://store.cambiumlearning.com/resource.aspx?page=ProgramOverview&site=sw&parentId=019005451

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The WWC's extent-of-evidence categorization (Appendix A5) lists one study, one school, and 34 students in each domain, below the threshold of at least two studies, two schools, and 350 students or 14 classrooms for a medium-to-large rating.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read Well ® t o be small for both reading achievement and English language development for English language learners."

Read Well® 2010 (2)¶

Read Well®. (2010). WWC Intervention Report. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. http://store.cambiumlearning.com/resource.aspx?page=ProgramOverview&site=sw&parentId=019005451

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Of five reviewed studies, only Frasco (2008) met WWC evidence standards; the other four do not meet evidence standards or eligibility screens, including one excluded because the intervention and comparison groups were not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

"Five studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Read Well ® on English language learners. One study (Frasco, 2008) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — 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 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 — 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 evidence base for the Wilson Reading System in beginning reading is small, with no studies addressing general reading achievement — 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
• Read Well® shows potentially positive effects on English language development for elementary school English language learners — related
• The evidence base for Headsprout Early Reading is limited to one small RCT, supporting only a potentially positive rating — related
• Small-group instructional intervention for students struggling in literacy and English language development is supported by six RCTs at moderate evidence level — related
• In the supporting RCT, Read Well® was delivered as a mastery-paced core reading program for about three months alongside a 90-minute daily literacy block — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain — related