Cart
Chenault Study Authors State WWC's Review
Is "Misapplication of Data"
What Works Clearinghouse has posted an inaccurate evaluation of Read Naturally. The Chenault study review is deceptive for several reasons.
Chenault study did not evaluate Read Naturally. Chenault study authors clearly state that the study did not evaluate Read Naturally. The following is an excerpt from Belle Chenault's dissertation:
"This study was not intended as an examination of the Read Naturally program. The lack of demonstrable standard score gains on the GORT Rate subtest for the Read Naturally group following this short term of training should not be construed as indicating that this instructional program is not effective in improving reading fluency. These children were not selected for their reading fluency problems – they were selected for their persisting writing problems."
In addition, Belle Chenault stated in an e-mail:
"The Read Naturally program is a widely recognized and widely used curriculum that has been appropriately validated in other studies. This study was not intended as an examination of the Read Naturally program. Using our study to evaluate Read Naturally or its effects is a misapplication of our data."
Chenault study used Read Naturally as a contact control. Read Naturally was not the subject of the Chenault study. Rather, it was used as a contact control. The Chenault study was evaluating Pay Attention and writing. Belle Chenault’s advisor, Dr. Virginia Berninger, stated:
"You cannot use a contact control (which we knew would be good for the children and not a waste of their time but was not predicted to change the aspect of writing we were training) to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the contact control. In fact there is an emerging literature on the fact that, while reading and writing have some relationships, there are aspects of writing not related to reading at all, which is why I think Joe Jenkins proposed using reading fluency training [Read Naturally] as a contact control."
According to Dr. Berninger, “In no way can this kind of experimental design, which is well established in educational science, be considered a randomized controlled evaluation of the contact control for its treatment effectiveness.”
Implementation Discrepancies
In addition, there were significant implementation discrepancies between Read Naturally's recommended process and the way the Chenault study used Read Naturally. The Chenault study did not follow Read Naturally's process in the following ways:
Students spent minimal time reading. Read Naturally recommends that the minimum standard for students to engage in the Read Naturally strategy is at least three times a week. In the Chenault study, students met two times a week for 25 minutes a session, for just five weeks.
Students' time in Read Naturally was too brief to show results. When introducing students to the Read Naturally strategy, Read Naturally expects students to need six to ten sessions to learn the steps of the strategy in order to make progress. In the Chenault study, students only met for ten, 25-minute sessions total (only two weeks if the students had met each day of the week). This was enough time to learn the steps but not nearly enough time to demonstrate progress.
Read Naturally's placement process was not followed. Read Naturally uses a specific placement procedure based on words correct per minute (WCPM) on one-minute timed readings of passages from the Read Naturally placement packet. Using the passages in the placement packet allows teachers to find a precise level at which to start the student, so the student will be challenged but not frustrated. In the Chenault study, students were placed based on pretest assessment measures, which would not have been sufficient to find each student's correct level.
Students did not work individually. Read Naturally recommends that students work individually in the strategy to maximize their progress in reading and to develop independent skills. In the Chenault study, most of the students did a choral reading with another student and a teacher for the read along portion of the strategy. Typically, this method would hold back the progress of at least one of the students. Also, most students benefit from the gradually increasing speeds on Read Naturally's audio recordings, which were not used in the study.
The Pass Step was not implemented correctly. Answering all the comprehension questions correctly is one of four criteria to pass in the Read Naturally strategy. In the Chenault study, this criteria was not required.
Conclusion
Because the Chenault study did not intend to evaluate Read Naturally and did not follow the Read Naturally strategy, What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) should remove this review from its website. The review goes against the study authors' recommendation, and it deceives consumers with inaccurate information about Read Naturally.