A Randomized Controlled Trial of Foundations for Literacy With Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Amy R. Lederberg, Susan Easterbrooks, Lee Branum-Martin, Victoria Burke & Stacey Tucci (2025). Scientific Studies of Reading, 29(5), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2025.2519111.
-
examining212Students, gradesPK-K
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Foundations for Literacy)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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-Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Foundations for Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
348.06 |
332.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III): Picture Vocabulary subtest |
Foundations for Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
450.42 |
441.89 |
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.
-
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Washington
-
Race Asian 5% Black 21% Other or unknown 40% Two or more races 5% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 35% Not Hispanic or Latino 65% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 49% No FRPL 51%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in preschool, prekindergarten, and kindergarten classrooms across 39 schools in 14 states (AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, IL, KY, MN, NC, NV, NY, TN, TX, WA). Sites included public elementary schools (32 classes), nonprofit schools supported by state or city education departments (12 classes), and private schools for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (4 classes). Classes included both those with only deaf or hard of hearing students (58%) and integrated classes with deaf or hard of hearing students and typically hearing peers (42%); most used spoken English only (70%), with the remainder using spoken English and sign language (30%); no ASL–English bilingual schools were included.
Study sample
The study sample included 228 deaf or hard of hearing children taught by 48 teachers who were randomly assigned to study conditions. Teachers reported that about two-thirds of students (67%) could hear well enough (often with hearing devices) to learn through spoken language only, 18% learned using both spoken words and sign language, and about one in six (17%) did not have enough hearing access to spoken language at the start of the study; 36% had a cochlear implant. Twenty-seven percent of children had at least one additional disability, 18 percent had a severe disability, and 12 percent had a cognitive disability.
Intervention Group
Foundations for Literacy is a year-long early-literacy curriculum for deaf or hard of hearing preschoolers and kindergartners that integrates code-focused skills (phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge) with meaning-focused work (vocabulary, shared reading). Teachers taught four one-hour lessons per week for 24 weeks (96 core lessons), with up to four optional supplemental units. The first four weeks established instructional language; subsequent units each centered on a target phoneme introduced through a brief “Miss Giggle” story and reinforced with picture mnemonics, letter-sound cards, activities linking sounds to print, and daily shared-reading. Weekly routines included explicit practice in syllable segmentation, initial-sound identification, rhyming, and phoneme blending; teaching 6–10 unit-aligned vocabulary words; and reading decodable “keyword” words. Lesson plans included ways to tailor teaching for children at different skill levels (“buds” for beginners and “blooms” for more advanced learners), with guidance for students learning through spoken language only, both speech and sign, or sign language only.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group continued their typical literacy instruction. Comparison classrooms did not teach the phoneme-level activities (for example, phoneme segmentation/blending, letter-sound fluency) that were central to the intervention.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers received a two-day (16 hour) summer workshop on Foundations for Literacy and access to training videos on the program website. During the school year, they video-recorded multiple lessons and received written coaching feedback that highlighted strengths and offered suggestions. On average, teachers recorded about sixteen lessons and included about 79% of the lesson components, and when a component was included, observers found teachers implemented about 94% of the required instructional elements on average.
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).