Skip to main content

A Comparison of Children Aged 4–5 Years Learning to Read Through Instructional Texts Containing Either a High or a Low Proportion of Phonically-Decodable Words

Abstract

We report a study where we investigated the effect of low or high phonically-decodable texts on young children learning to read. Two parallel series of 12 instructional reading books were used with 36 children in three schools. These books were purposely created so that each parallel book, in sequence, introduced the same number of new words. Children were randomly assigned to a condition in each classroom using a split-cluster design. Prior to reading the books, children played associated games to introduce the new vocabulary. Children were assessed at pre and post-intervention using standardised measures of word reading and comprehension. Our results demonstrate a statistically significant difference and large effect size for reading comprehension in favour of the low phonically-decodable texts. The findings challenge the assumption that children find highly decodable text easier to read, and may have implications for reading policies and classroom practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher,66(7), 520–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allor, J. H., Gifford, D. B., Al Otaiba, S., Miller, S. J., & Cheatham, J. P. (2013). Teaching students with intellectual disability to integrate reading skills: Effects of text and text based lessons. Remedial and Special Education,34, 346–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allor, J. H., Gifford, D. B., Jones, F. G., Al Otaiba, S., Yovanoff, P., Ortiz, M. B., et al. (2018). The effects of a text-centred literacy curriculum for students with intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,123(5), 474–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2018). Does text complexity matter in the elementary grades? A research synthesis of text difficulty and elementary student’s reading fluency and comprehension. Educational Psychological Review,30(1), 121–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizpe, E., & Styles, M. (2003). Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2016). Statisticians issue warning on p values. Nature,531, 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverly, B. L., Giles, M., & Buck, K. L. (2009). First-grade reading gains following enrichment: Phonics plus decodable texts compared to authentic literature read aloud. The Reading Teacher,53(4), 292–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. J. (2000). What kind of text—For whom and when? Textual scaffolding for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher,53(4), 292–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,19, 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheatham, P., & Allor, H. (2012). The influence of decodability in early reading text on reading achievement: A review of the evidence. Reading and Writing,25, 2223–2246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us?. London: Heineman Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. M. (2014). Synthetic phonics and literacy learning. Birmingham: Glendale Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomised controlled trial. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coles, G. (2004). Real books in the Caboose. Knowledge Quest,33(2), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education [DfE]. (2010). Phonics teaching materials: Core criteria and the self-assessment process. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education [DfE]. (2012). Criteria for assuring high-quality phonic work. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education [DfE]. (2013). National curriculum for England. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education [DfE]. (2014). National curriculum for english key stages 1 and 2. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., Sewell, J., Styles, B., Brzyska, B., Shamsan, Y., et al. (2009). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (3rd ed.). London: GL Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Scaffolded reading instruction of content-area texts. The Reading Teacher,67(5), 347–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, K. S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist,6, 126–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goswami, U., Barnes, L., Mead, N., Power, A. J., & Leong, V. (2016). Prosodic similarity effects in short-term memory in developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. F., & Wood, J. F. (2000). Language readers: Language readers level 1, book A, units 1-6 (pp. 4–7). Sopris West: Longmont, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C. S. (2016). Inference instruction for struggling readers: A synthesis of intervention research. Educational Psychological Review,28(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., & Patterson, E. U. (2002). Decodable texts for beginning reading instruction: The year 2000 basals. Journal of Literacy Research,34(3), 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2005). Teaching children to read, eighth report of session 2004-5. London: The Stationery Office, House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huey, E. D. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, D., & Styles, B. (2010). A guide to running randomised controlled trials for educational researchers. Slough: NFER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading,8(1), 53–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachorsky, D., Moses, L., Serafini, F., & Hoelting, M. (2017). Meaning making with picturebooks: Young children’s use of semiotic resources. Literacy Research and Instruction,56(3), 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L. B., & Moses, L. (2018). Children’s literature that sparks inferential discussions. The Reading Teacher,72(1), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, P., Layton, L., Miller, C., Goldbart, J., & Lawson, H. (2007). What is literacy for students with severe learning difficulties? Exploring conventional and inclusive literacy. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,7(3), 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B. (2011). English in the National Curriculum: A simple redraft or a major rewrite? The Curriculum Journal,22(2), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2008). Designing experiments and analysing data (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNally, J., & Murray, W. (1962). Key words to literacy. London: The Schoolmaster Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menter, I., Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2017). A tale of two countries—Forty years on: politics and teacher education in Russia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education,40(5), 616–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer, H. A. E. (2009). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and Instruction,40(2), 121–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaud, M., Dion, E., Barrette, A., Dupéré, V., & Toste, J. (2017). Does knowing what a word means influence how easily its decoding is learned? Reading & Writing Quarterly,33(1), 82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, E. (2012). Managing change—The relationship between education and politics. Better Evidence-based Education,4(2), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosely, D. (2004). The diagnostic assessment of word recognition and phonic skills in five-year-olds. Journal of Research in Reading,27(2), 132–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, L., & Kelly, L. B. (2018). ‘We’re a little loud. That’s because we like to read!’: Developing positive views of reading in a diverse, urban first grade. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,18(3), 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munton, G. (2006). Tab the cat. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. A., McIlwain, M. J., Wang, C., Murray, G., & Finley, S. (2019). How do beginners learn to read irregular words as sight words? Journal of Research in Reading,41(1), 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahachewsky, J. (2013). Understanding the importance of ethos in composing the “everyday” new literacies classroom. Language and Literacy,15(1), 74–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy. Washington D.C: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD]. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific method: Statistical errors. P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature,506, 150–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). (2019). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-inspection-handbooks-drafts-for-consultation Accessed 9 February 2019.

  • Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy,18(1), 216–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price-Mohr, R. M (2016). Comparing a controlled levelled text with a language rich text in a beginner reading scheme. University of York. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/12904/

  • Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of educational research (3rd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Protopapas, A., Mouzaki, A., Sideridis, G. D., Kotsolakou, A., & Simos, P. G. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the context of the simple view of reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,29(2), 168–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V. M., Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2011). The role of self-teaching in learning orthographic and semantic aspects of new words. Scientific Studies of Reading,15(1), 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,79(4), 1391–1466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. (1973). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Little, D. R. (2018). Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,25(6), 2083–2101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowling, M., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., et al. (2009). York assessment of reading for comprehension. London: GL Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solar, J., & Openshaw, R. (2007). ‘To be or not to be?’: The politics of teaching phonics in England and New Zealand. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,7(3), 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solity, J., & Vousden, J. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: A new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology,29(4), 469–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research,37(1), 25–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: The silent partner in early years learning. Early Years,30(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S. F., Kern, S., & DosSantos, C. (2012). Extended statistical learning as an account for slow vocabulary growth. Journal of Child Language,39(1), 105–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, M. (2019). Global politics and local impacts on educational policy. Policy Futures in Education,17(3), 302–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, C. J., Brookes, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature in the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Designing randomised trials. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victoria Liberal (2018). https://vic.liberal.org.au/News/2018-10-10/liberal-nationals-to-fund-decodable-readers-for-victorian-schools Accessed 9 February 2019.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). The role of play in development, mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, M. (2003). ‘Reading’ pictures: What do they reveal? Young children’s reading of visual texts. Literacy,37(3), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenz-Gross, M., & Upshur, C. (2012). Implementing a primary prevention social skills intervention in urban preschools: Factors associated with quality and fidelity. Early Education and Development,23(4), 427–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Comar, S. (2008). Re-evaluating the significance of phonemic awareness and phonics in literacy teaching: The shared role of school counsellors and teachers. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling,18(2), 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Price-Mohr.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Price-Mohr, R., Price, C. A Comparison of Children Aged 4–5 Years Learning to Read Through Instructional Texts Containing Either a High or a Low Proportion of Phonically-Decodable Words. Early Childhood Educ J 48, 39–47 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00970-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00970-4

Keywords

  • Decodable
  • Reading acquisition
  • Comprehension
  • Vocabulary
  • Young children