A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating effects of individualized literacy instruction on students' reading from first through third grade

Abstract

Using a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design, we examined whether students' reading outcomes differed when they received 1, 2, or 3 years of individualized reading instruction from first through third grade, compared with a treated control group. More than 45% of students came from families living in poverty. Following students, we randomly assigned their teachers each year to deliver individualized reading instruction or a treated control condition intervention focused on mathematics. Students who received individualized reading instruction in all three grades showed the strongest reading skills by the end of third grade compared with those who received fewer years of such instruction. There was inconsistent evidence supporting a sustained first-grade treatment effect: Individualized instruction in first grade was necessary but not sufficient for stronger third-grade reading outcomes. These effects were achieved by regular classroom teachers who received professional development, which indicates that policies that support the use of evidence-based reading instruction and teacher training can yield increased student achievement.

Keywords: academic achievement; childhood development; dyslexia; literacy; reading.

Fig. 1

Longitudinal research design of the present study. Children were followed from first through third grade, and their teachers were randomly assigned to condition—Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI) reading intervention or mathematics control instruction—at each grade. Hence, students could receive 1, 2, or 3 years of the ISI reading intervention in various grade configurations.

Fig. 2

Recommended amount of teacher-child-managed, meaning- focused instruction in the first grade as a function of students’ grade-equivalent reading level (−1 = preschool, 0 = kindergarten). Recommended amounts were computed using Assessment to Instruction software (Connor et al., 2013).

Fig. 3

Recommended amount of child-managed, code-focused instruction in the first grade as a function of students’ grade-equivalent reading level (−1 = preschool, 0 = kindergarten). Recommended amounts were computed using Assessment to Instruction software (Connor et al., 2013).

Fig. 4

Fitted mean growth curve for students’ reading scores from the fall of first grade through the spring of third grade for all students (end of second grade = 0 months).

Fig. 5

Fitted end of first-, second-, and third-grade reading outcomes as a function of whether students (N = 882) participated in Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI)-reading instruction or the mathematics intervention. In the key, “C” indicates the mathematics control group and “T” indicates the ISI-reading treatment condition, with the order of letters signaling which type of instruction was received in Grades 1, 2, and 3 (e.g., TTC students received ISI reading in first and second grade and were in the control group in third grade). Error bars show standard errors. Values were calculated using data shown in Table 7.