Ready4Reading Evidence Portfolio
32
Conclusion
In light of these findings, Scholastic Ready4Reading appears well-aligned with contemporary research in literacy science and demonstrates clear potential to enhance the development of students’ foundational reading skills with regard to phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and fluency. The program’s comprehensive instructional offerings for early literacy, along with its systematic, research-based approach to phonics appear to position students to efficiently and thoroughly develop the fundamental skills needed to be successful readers while simultaneously developing their engagement and interest in reading. As importantly, the instructional materials and resources made available to Ready4Reading users, as well as the overarching design and structure of th e program’s pedagogical framework, incorporate a variety of prominent instructional features that appear well-supported in contemporary research on best teaching practices for early literacy development. As discussed throughout this evidence portfolio, the research literature related to the program’s core components— explicit phonics teaching that leverages decodable texts, integration of phonics instruction with instruction on other foundational literacy concepts, and use of high- interest texts, interactive activities, culturally responsive materials, and differentiated scaffolds — is quite supportive and is suggestive of the potential benefits this overarching approach may yield. Importantly, program components across each of these areas appear embedded with key instructional strategies aligned with research-based best practices. Rooted in an overarching pedagogical framework that emphasizes systematic, explicit phonics instruction that is connected to decodable texts and content-facing reading materials, Ready4Reading lessons appear well- designed to bolster students’ mastery of foundational literacy skills and well-positioned to potentially enhance the speed in which they develop fluency with grade-level texts (Blevins, 2017; Castles et al., 2018; Ehri et al., 2001; Ehri, 2005; Foorman et al., 2016; NICHD, 2000; Stahl, 2011). By designing instructional activities and lessons so that phonics-based teaching is integrated with instruction in other essential literacy areas, such as oral language, knowledge building, vocabulary, and reading comprehension — research suggests that students will be positioned to learn to read while simultaneously reading to learn (Slavin, 2009; Guthrie, 2008; Fairbanks et al., 2014; Metsala et al., 2021; Owens, 2020; Blevins, 2019). Program components and instructional strategies aimed explicitly at fostering student interest in and engagement with reading (Brandt et al., 2021; Slavin, 2009; Blevins, 2019; Borman et al., 2007; Fairbanks et al., 2014), including the incorporation of decodable texts and text sets aimed explicitly at student interests (Brandt et al., 2021; Guthrie et al., 2012; Deci & Ryan, 2017; Hollie, 2018), appear well-positioned to enhance learning outcomes as well. The incorporation of resources aimed at providing differentiated instruction, including the program’s multimedia components, interactive features, and student- centered practice materials, also appear to be well-grounded in instructional best-practices research, particularly as it relates to enhancing student engagement (Tomlinson et al., 2003; Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). As importantly, program features aimed at promoting inclusion and enhancing equity, including those related to Universal Design for Learning and culturally responsive pedagogy (Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Daley, & Rose, 2012; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005; Hollie, 2018; Hammond, 2014; Stembridge, 2015), as well as those aimed at providing opportunities for formative assessment and feedback, serve to potentially provide for a data-informed and highly personalized learning experience for students.
© Johns Hopkins University, 2023
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs