Does Instructional Alignment Matter?: Effects on Struggling Second Graders' Reading Achievement
Wonder-McDowell, Carla; Reutzel, D. Ray; Smith, John A. (2011). Elementary School Journal, v112 n2 p259-279. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ963711
-
examining133Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Supplemental reading instruction aligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction aligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) vs. Supplemental reading instruction unaligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.25 |
93.04 |
Yes |
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction aligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) vs. Supplemental reading instruction unaligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.41 |
99.04 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Reading Comprehension Subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction aligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) vs. Supplemental reading instruction unaligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.08 |
90.82 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) |
Supplemental reading instruction aligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) vs. Supplemental reading instruction unaligned with core reading instruction – Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
40.87 |
38.92 |
Yes |
|
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.
-
46% English language learners -
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
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
West
-
Race Other or unknown 57% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 80% No FRPL 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 11 elementary schools.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 153 second-grade students to either the intervention or comparison condition. The analytic sample included 133 of these 153 students. To be eligible to participate, students had to score in the lowest quartile on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency test and read below 30 correct words per minute. Students receiving special education services for reading disabilities under an IEP were excluded from the study.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received supplemental reading instruction in addition to their regular classroom core reading instruction. The supplemental reading instruction was aligned with the core classroom reading instruction to reinforce the same reading skills. It matched the reading strategies, concepts, sequence, and pacing used in the classroom core reading program. Twelve reading specialists provided the supplemental instruction to small groups of four students in daily 30-minute sessions over 20 weeks.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the same regular classroom core reading instruction. They also received similar supplemental reading instruction, but the supplemental instruction used the scope and sequence of skills from the Read Well program (Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 1998) instead of being aligned with the core classroom reading instruction. As in the intervention condition, the supplemental instruction was provided by the same twelve reading specialists to small groups of four students in daily 30-minute sessions over 20 weeks.
Support for implementation
The reading specialists participating in the study received 28 hours of professional development in instructional procedures related to delivering the aligned and unaligned core and supplemental reading instruction before the program began. Additionally, the process of aligning the scope and sequences of the core and supplemental programs of instruction required an additional 42 hours of professional development and planning. During the 20-week study, the reading specialists participated in monthly training meetings where they discussed issues related to the implementation of the aligned and unaligned supplemental reading instruction.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).