Project Read[R] Phonology. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2010-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Multisensory Learning,Language Arts,English Curriculum,Phonology,Instructional Effectiveness,Evidence,Standards,Reading Achievement,Learning Disabilities,Intervention,Meta Analysis,Phonics,Linguistics,Reading Comprehension,Writing (Composition),Self Expression,Reading Fluency,Integrated Curriculum,Kindergarten,Grade 1,Grade 2,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5

&quot;Project Read&quot;[R] is a multisensory language arts curriculum designed for use in a classroom or group setting. Two main objectives of the program are to use language in all its forms, and to use responsive instruction rather than preplanned textbook lessons. The program emphasizes direct instruction, and lessons move from letter-sounds to words, sentences, and stories. &quot;Project Read&quot;[R] has three strands: Phonics/Linguistics, Reading Comprehension, and Written Expression, which are integrated at all grade levels, though the emphasis of the specific strands differs by grade. This intervention report examines the effectiveness of &quot;Project Read[R] Phonology.&quot; One study (Bussjaeger, 1993) of &quot;Project Read[R] Phonology&quot; that falls within the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review protocol meets WWC (What Works Clearinghouse) evidence standards, and one study (Acalin, 1995) meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. However, only the study by Acalin presents sufficient outcome data to allow the WWC to make a determination of the effectiveness of the program. Although this report describes the two studies, the WWC review of the effectiveness of the program is based only on the Acalin (1995) study, which included 66 students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through grade 4 from five school districts. Appended are: (1) Study characteristics: Bussjaeger, 1993; (2) Study characteristics: Acalin, 1995; (3) Outcome measures for the alphabetics domain; (4) Outcome measures for the reading comprehension domain; (5) Outcome measures for the general reading achievement domain; (6) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain; (7) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the reading comprehension domain; (8) Summary of study findings included in the rating for the general reading achievement domain; (9) &quot;Project Read[R] Phonology&quot; rating for the alphabetics domain; (10) &quot;Project Read[R] Phonology&quot; rating for the reading comprehension domain; (11) &quot;Project Read[R] Phonology&quot; rating for the general reading achievement domain; and (12) Extent of evidence by domain. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [The following two studies are reviewed in this intervention report: Bussjaeger, J. J. (1993). &quot;The effectiveness of Project Read on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities&quot; (Master's thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 1993). &quot;Masters Abstracts International, 31&quot;(04), 54-1480; and Acalin, T. A. (1995). &quot;A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project Read&quot; (Master's thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 1995). &quot;Masters Abstracts International, 33&quot;(06), 54-1660.]