Research

Fourteen studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Read Naturally. One study (Hancock, 2002) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards. Another study (Mesa, 2004) is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 12 studies do not meet WWC evidence screens.

Meets evidence standards

Hancock (2002) conducted a randomized controlled trial of second-grade students from one school in Arizona.⁴ The students were randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups using block randomization procedures. Students were pretested, matched with a similarly performing peer, and then randomly assigned to a study condition. In all, 48 students were in the intervention group and 46 students were in the comparison group.

Meets evidence standards with reservations

Mesa (2004) is a quasi-experimental study of first-graders from one public elementary school in Georgia. Teachers identified 12 first-grade students in a single classroom who already knew how to decode certain word patterns. Students were pretested, matched, and divided into two similar groups based on pretest scores, with six students in each group.

Extent of evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations.⁵

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read Naturally to be small for fluency and comprehension. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed alphabetics or general reading achievement.