Read, Write & Type!™ shows statistically significant positive effects on phoneme segmenting and word attack relative to regular classroom instruction for low-achieving first graders¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Compared with regular classroom instruction/support, Read, Write & Type!™ produced statistically significant positive effects on phoneme segmenting (effect size 0.80) and word attack (effect size 0.65). → What Works Clearinghouse 2007 (2) q3 i? Effects on phoneme blending, phoneme elision, and word identification versus regular instruction were positive but not statistically significant after WWC corrections. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Read, Write & Type!™. http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/RWTfullrept.pdf

q3 · i2 · causal · r?

Randomized controlled trial comparison of Read, Write & Type!™ (n = 36) with a regular instruction/support group (n = 41) in three schools, analyzed by the WWC. Appendix A3.1 prints effect sizes of 0.80 for CTOPP phoneme segmenting (improvement index +29) and 0.65 for Woodcock word attack (+24); blending (0.38), elision (0.29), and word identification (0.48) were "ns".

"the authors reported, and the WWC confirmed, statistically significant positive effects of Read, Write & Type!™ on one of the phonological awareness measures (phoneme segmenting) and on one of the phonics measures (word attack)"

What Works Clearinghouse 2007 (2)¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Read, Write & Type!™. http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/RWTfullrept.pdf

q3 · i2 · causal · r?

WWC calculations for the RWT versus regular instruction comparison on the CTOPP phoneme segmenting subtest: mean difference 3.70, effect size 0.80, statistically significant at α = 0.05, improvement index +29. The article describes this as a "randomized controlled trial" meeting WWC evidence standards.

"CTOPP: Phoneme Segmenting Subtest Grade 1 77 15.40 (4.70) 11.70 (4.50) 3.70 0.80 Statistically significant +29"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no statistically significant alphabetics advantages over the Auditory Discrimination in Depth® comparison — related
• No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis — related
• Reading Go! tutoring produced significantly positive decoding and word-reading outcomes for low-performing first graders compared to students who did not receive the program — related
• Enhanced Core Reading Instruction improves word-level reading outcomes for first graders compared to control (average effect size +0.24) — related
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no discernible effects on reading comprehension or vocabulary for beginning readers — related
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related