Skip to content
Home » Content Marketing » LXD Research Reviews a new Science of Reading Research Paper

LXD Research Reviews a new Science of Reading Research Paper

LXD Research founder Rachel Schechter, Ph,D. supported an important effort on understanding Science of Reading research across the grades and sharing those findings with educators across North America. Partnering with Pedagogy Non-Grata and the Right to Read Initiative, LXD Research reviewed and informed a new educator-facing article that helps educators know which research best supports certain literacy practices for different grade ranges. Together, they created a reading “jump rope” that can be used to make research-informed decisions about assessment and curriculum purchases for schools and districts.

Video of the Roundtable on the Right to Read Initiative. Nathaniel Hansford, Dr. Kathryn Garforth, Dr. Rachel Schechter, and Dr. Brandi Noll get together for a round table discussion on the Science of Reading and curriculum. They discuss an article they co-wrote called A Road Map to Evidence-Based Instruction in Reading and Writing Education: A Secondary Meta-analysis on the Science of Reading & Writing Instruction and what it means for classroom teaching.

A Road Map to Evidence-Based Instruction in Reading and Writing Education: A Secondary Meta-analysis on the Science of Reading & Writing Instruction. Written by Nathaniel Hansford, Kathryn Garforth, and Joshua King. Contributed to by Rachel Schechter & Brandi Noll 

Abstract: The authors of this paper conducted a secondary meta-analysis on education factors related to the science of reading and writing instruction. This analysis examined the findings of 31 other meta-analyses and secondary meta-analyses and synthesized these effects into one graph. Next these results were examined according to how they varied according to different grade ranges. Based on the findings of this research and the collective teaching experiences of the authors, curriculum recommendations were made for each grade. This paper showed that instructional practices showed dramatically different effects across age ranges. Within the younger grades, more foundational instructional practices showed higher impacts, such as phonics, phonemic awareness, and morphology. Whereas in older grades comprehension and fluency instruction typically showed greater impacts. With this finding in mind, the authors would recommend that while early instruction should not be limited to foundational instruction that it should focus on it. Conversely, they would recommend that core instruction for older students should focus less on foundational skills and more on comprehension/fluency.