Cart
Home  Our Approach Reviews of Read Naturally
|
Study Authors Tell Federal Reviewer Their Studies Are Not Evaluations of Read Naturally
In each of the four reviews of Read Naturally posted by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), the study authors stated that their study was not designed to evaluate Read Naturally.
Review #1:
Hancock Study Not Intended to Evaluate Read Naturally
"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."
– Carrie Hancock, Study Author
Summary analysis of Hancock study
Review #2:
Denton Study Assessments Flawed
"The measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction did not include measures of fluency. Since Read Naturally is an intervention targeted at fluency, the measures used did not match the specific purpose and intent of the Read Naturally instruction given to the students in that group. The Denton study is misrepresented and erroneously mislabeled as an evaluation study."
– Jan Hasbrouck, Study Co-Author
Summary analysis of the Denton study
Review #3:
Kemp Study Evaluated Sustained Silent Reading, Not Read Naturally
"My study was a study of sustained silent reading and the purpose was not to evaluate Read Naturally."
– Susan Kemp, Study Author
Summary analysis of the Kemp study
Review #4:
Chenault Study Did Not Evaluate Read Naturally
"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."
– Belle Chenault, Study Author
"In no way can this use of Read Naturally as a contact control be considered an evaluation of Read Naturally."
– Dr. Virginia Berninger, Study Advisor
Summary analysis of the Chenault study