Teaching Rime Analogy or Letter Recoding Reading Strategies to Prereaders: Effects on Prereading Skills and Word Reading. [Experiment 1: Letter recoding vs. control]
Walton, Patrick D.; Walton, Lona M.; Felton, Kathy (2001). Journal of Educational Psychology, v93 n1 p160-80 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638733
-
examining20Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Sounds |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
18.04 |
14.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Medial Phoneme Identity |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
2.98 |
1.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Final Phoneme Identity |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
3.94 |
2.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming oddity |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
5.53 |
5.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Generating rhyme |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
9.05 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme segmentation |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
16.41 |
14.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Initial Phoneme Identity |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
3.65 |
3.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nonwords - New rimes |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
2.80 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Recoding - With clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
2.50 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Nonwords - Taught rimes |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
2.70 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 2 - No clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
2.80 |
1.10 |
No |
|
|
|
Analogy 1 - No clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
0.30 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 2 - With clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
3.40 |
1.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Recoding - No clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
1.90 |
0.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 1 - With clues |
Letter recoding instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Letter recoding vs. typical instruction;
|
1.00 |
0.90 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
Study Details
Setting
Four research assistants delivered the interventions to groups of 2-4 students in spare rooms near the classrooms. Each classroom was assigned a single research assistant, so each research assistant delivered both the Letter Recoding and Rime Analogy interventions. Research assistants provided no instruction to the No Contact and High Scoring No Contact groups, but did administer the pre- and posttest assessments to all students in a classroom regardless of experimental condition. Instruction was delivered in a spare room near to the classroom. The schools from which students were selected to participate in the study are in low to high socioeconomic areas of a medium-sized city in British Columbia, Canada.
Intervention Group
(1) Small groups of 2-4 students were pulled out of their classroom by one of four research assistants, twice a week for 11 weeks in approximate 25 minute sessions. (2) The research assistant provides 1-2 minutes of direct instruction in prereading skills and the intervention reading strategy. Letter recoding instruction involved presenting students with written words and demonstrating how to sound out the letters in sequence and then combine the sounds to say the word. (3) Following the direct instruction, children played one of three reading strategy-specific cooperative games, or one of two or three prereading skill-specific cooperative games. The research assistant would model letter recoding skills when students struggled in the games. (4) After the first round of posttesting, regular classroom teachers were given professional development in the activities and game materials used in the interventions and encouraged to use them in their classroom.
Comparison Group
The No Contact group received regular classroom instruction and only interacted with the research assistants for pretesting and posttesting. The students were exposed to the intervention strategies after the first round of posttesting: regular classroom teachers were given professional development in the activities and game materials used in the interventions and encouraged to use them in their classroom.
Support for implementation
The research assistants received training in an unreported number of sessions held prior to pretesting, and then weekly during the study. Two of the assistants were certified and experienced teachers, and the other two were education university students selected for high academic standing.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Sounds |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
18.52 |
14.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Medial Phoneme Identity |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
5.06 |
1.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Initial Phoneme Identity |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
5.30 |
3.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Yopp Sound Isolation Test - Final Phoneme Identity |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
3.93 |
2.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme segmentation |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
18.60 |
16.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Generating rhyme |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
5.47 |
5.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming oddity |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
5.06 |
5.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Recoding - With clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
2.30 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 2 - No clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
3.00 |
1.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Nonwords - New rimes |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
2.20 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 2 - With clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
3.30 |
1.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Recoding - No clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
2.10 |
0.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Nonwords - Taught rimes |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
2.00 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 1 - With clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
2.10 |
0.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analogy 1 - No clues |
Rime analogy instruction—Walton et al. (2001) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Rime analogy vs. typical instruction;
|
0.50 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
Study Details
Setting
Four research assistants delivered the interventions to groups of 2-4 students in spare rooms near the classrooms. Each classroom was assigned a single research assistant, so each research assistant delivered both the Letter Recoding and Rime Analogy interventions. Research assistants provided no instruction to the No Contact and High Scoring No Contact groups, but did administer the pre- and posttest assessments to all students in a classroom regardless of experimental condition. Instruction was delivered in a spare room near to the classroom. The schools from which students were selected to participate in the study are in low to high socioeconomic areas of a medium-sized city in British Columbia, Canada.
Intervention Group
(1) Small groups of 2-4 students were pulled out of their classroom by one of four research assistants, twice a week for 11 weeks in approximate 25 minute sessions. (2) The research assistant provides 1-2 minutes of direct instruction in prereading skills and the intervention reading strategy. Rime analogy instruction involved presenting students with written words that shared rime spellings and teaching them to recognize rime spellings at the end of the words. (3) Following the direct instruction, children played one of three reading strategy-specific cooperative games, or one of two or three prereading skill-specific cooperative games. The research assistant would model rime analogy skills when students struggled in the games. (4) After the first round of posttesting, regular classroom teachers were given professional development in the activities and game materials used in the interventions and encouraged to use them in their classroom.
Comparison Group
The No Contact group received regular classroom instruction and only interacted with the research assistants for pretesting and posttesting. The students were exposed to the intervention strategies after the first round of posttesting: regular classroom teachers were given professional development in the activities and game materials used in the interventions and encouraged to use them in their classroom.
Support for implementation
The research assistants received training in an unreported number of sessions held prior to pretesting, and then weekly during the study. Two of the assistants were certified and experienced teachers, and the other two were education university students selected for high academic standing.
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).