Cart
Company
University Study of Read Naturally Gets
Top Rating From National Center on RTI
The National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) has given a University of Minnesota study of Read Naturally its highest ratings for study quality.
The study, conducted by Associate Professor Theodore Christ, Ph.D., and Jennifer Davie, found that students using Read Naturally Software Edition had 39% greater gains in fluency than students in a control group.
The NCRTI was established by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and researchers from the University of Kansas and Vanderbilt University to provide technical assistance to states and districts in implementing RTI and Early Intervening Services (EIS). NCRTI receives funding from the U.S. Department of Education.
One of the NCRTI’s activities is a rigorous technical review to determine which tools, practices, and implementation strategies are deemed scientifically valid and appropriate for technical assistance and dissemination.
The NCRTI concluded that the Christ & Davie study of Read Naturally provided convincing evidence in four criteria—participants, design, fidelity of implementation, and measures, as shown in the following table:
| Study | Study Quality | |||
| Participants | Design | Fidelity of Implementation | Measures | |
| Christ & Davie Study of Read Naturally |  |
|
|
|
Key: 
Convincing evidence 
Partially convincing evidence 
Unconvincing evidence
About the University Study
The University of Minnesota study was a randomized control trial that was conducted in late 2008 and early 2009 across six schools with 109 low-performing students in third grade. Those students assigned to the Read Naturally group received intervention instruction for 30 minutes per day, five days a week, for 10 weeks. Students in the control group received normal classroom reading instruction with no supplemental fluency instruction.
Multiple standardized measures of reading accuracy and fluency indicated that students in the Read Naturally group outperformed students in the control group on all measures of accuracy and fluency.
The study examined the students’ fluency gains using results from Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments. The Read Naturally students gained, on average, 1.53 WRC/min per week compared to 1.10 WRC/min per week for students in the control group—39% greater gains for students in the Read Naturally group.
Figure 1 illustrates that the DIBELS average for the Read Naturally group was below that of the control group at pre-test, and after 10 weeks of intervention, the Read Naturally students outperformed those in the control group.
Figure 1. Chart Comparing Average DIBELS Scores
Over the Course of the 10-Week Study
Students in the Read Naturally group gained, on average, .40 WRC/min more than students in the control group. The magnitude of improvement should be compared to typical growth and expected levels of achievement among third-grade students. Published estimates of typical growth in third grade approximate 1.2 WRC/min among students in general education and .58 WRC/min among students in special education. Students are expected to exceed 100 WRC/min by the end of the third grade if they are to be successful on large scale state-wide assessments. A sustained additional improvement of .40 WRC/min across the academic year is substantial. Assuming a typical growth rate of approximately 1.20 WRC/min per week, a 39% improvement would result in improved growth to 1.68 WRC/min per week, which is a cumulative gain of 14.4 more words read correct across 36 weeks.
These results were not specific to DIBELS measures. After accounting for pre-test levels of performance, the students in the Read Naturally group scored one to two standard score units better on most standardized measures of fluency and accuracy after 10 weeks of intervention. If extrapolated across the school year, those gains would translate to approximately three to seven standard score units of improved performance for those students within the Read Naturally group compared to the control group. Such improvements would be substantial.
The observed gains for the experimental group were obtained with minimal resources. Teacher and personnel time is one of the most valuable resources in schools. The Read Naturally intervention was implemented with minimal support. Teachers received the recommended training in the Read Naturally strategy and completed the SE Self-Study course to supplement them in the software implementation. Individual teachers were able to supervise their groups of students while the students received individualized instruction from Read Naturally SE.
NCRTI Ratings on Their Website
The ratings for the Christ & Davie study will not be posted on the NCRTI website this fall, because the NCRTI is evaluating whether or not to account for pretest differences. Accurate and valid interpretation of the study results require effect-size calculations that account for pretest differences.
However, the NCRTI ratings of another Read Naturally study, conducted by David Heistad of the Minneapolis Public Schools, will be posted on the NCRTI website this fall.
The Heistad study, conducted during the 2003–2004 school year, included 156 students from four Minneapolis schools. Half of the students received Read Naturally instruction and were paired with students who did not receive Read Naturally instruction but had comparable baseline test scores and demographics.
The results of the study showed that the Read Naturally students outperformed the control group on the Northwest Achievement Levels Test (gains of 10.8 vs. 8.3 for the control group), the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (average score of 1366.4 vs. 1307.3 for the control group), and the Reading Fluency Monitor (average gains of 27.5 wcpm vs. 23.2 wcpm for the control group).
This means that students who received Read Naturally instruction had improved performance on the state-wide tests (at statistically significant levels), and a larger proportion of those students met proficiency standards for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) compared to similar students from the same district. That is, 43% of students who received Read Naturally instruction scored at Level 3 or above on the state test (i.e., met NCLB standards) compared to 27% of the students in the control group.
Complete Results of the University of Minnesota Study
More Control Group Studies