Flaws in the Hancock Study Reviewed
by What Works Clearinghouse
The Carrie Hancock dissertation study, "Accelerating Reading Trajectories: The Effects of Dynamic Research Based Instructions" used Read Naturally passages but did not follow Read Naturally recommended process. In fact, Carrie Hancock sent an e-mail message to What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to explain to them that they should not publish a review of her study as Read Naturally. In her e-mail Carrie stated, "While I used Read Naturally materials, I did NOT fully implement the Read Naturally strategy and my study was NOT intended to evaluate the Read Naturally strategy. Rather, the purpose was to determine the impact of ongoing supplemental fluency practice on second grade students rates of learning to read."
The response from Becki Herman, WWC Project Director to Hancock’s e-mail was that WWC does not consider the purpose of the study and does not consider implementation.
The Hancock study did NOT intend to use the Read Naturally strategy. The following are some of the deviations the Hancock study made from the Read Naturally strategy:
- The purpose of the Hancock study was to measure the rates of learning to read for second graders. It was not designed to use the Read Naturally strategy with struggling readers and measure the effectiveness of Read Naturally.
- The Hancock study did not use the Read Naturally placement system to ensure students started at a level where they would be challenged and be successful.
- It did not set goals based on an initial Read Naturally placement.
- Goals were not individualized based on the Read Naturally placement system. The Hancock study had the same goal of 100 WCPM for every student.
- The Hancock process of every student doing three read alongs and five one minute practice timings and then trying to achieve 100 WCPM was very inefficient. It would have been a punitive process for struggling students who could not achieve the goal in three read alongs and five practice reads and a boring process for students who could achieve the goal without eight readings of the passage.
- There was no adjustment of goal and level based on cold and final timings based on the Read Naturally goal and level adjustment guidelines.
- There was no prediction step, no key words step, and no retell step.
- The Hancock study did not have the Read Naturally recommended four criteria pass step (reach individualized goal rate, three or fewer errors, read with good expression and answer all the questions correctly. Students were not required to go back and master the expression or questions criteria if they fail on the pass step.
- A group size of 10 to 12 would have made it impossible for a teacher assistant to get to students in a timely manner for cold and final timings. Students would have been sitting around waiting.
- Not following Read Naturally’s placement, initial goal setting, adjusting goals and levels guidelines and progress monitoring procedures would have destroyed the intrinsic motivation that is a hallmark of the Read Naturally strategy.