What Works Clearinghouse
Five new What Works Clearinghouse reviews in the area of Beginning Reading, conducted by a team led by principal investigator Jill Constantine, focus on strategies to increase skills in alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement:
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance” (now called Accelerated Reader Best Classroom Practices). This intervention, consisting of a set of recommended principles on guided reading and a computer program that facilitates reading practice, had potentially positive effects on comprehension and general reading achievement.
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program/Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing (LiPS).” This intervention, designed to teach students skills to successfully decode words and to identify individual sounds and blends in words, had potentially positive effects on alphabetics and no discernible effects on comprehension.
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Early Intervention in Reading.” This intervention, designed to provide extra instruction to groups of students in K-4 at risk of failing to read, had potentially positive effects in alphabetics and comprehension.
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Little Books.” Designed for interactive book reading between parents and children or teachers and students, this intervention had potentially positive effects on general reading achievement.
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Read, Write & Type!” This software program with supporting materials designed to teach beginning reading skills by emphasizing writing as a way to learn to read had potentially positive effects on alphabetics and no discernible effects on comprehension.
In addition, a new Dropout Prevention review focuses on an alternative high school for youth considered at risk of dropping out (defined as no longer an active program):
“What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: High School Redirection.” The intervention had mixed effects on staying in school, potentially positive effects on progressing in school, and no discernible effects on completing school. Read the review, which was conducted by a team led by principal investigator Mark Dynarski.
Read more about Mathematica’s work in this area.