Content uploaded by Matthew K Burns
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew K Burns on Jan 03, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 1
Effect of an Instructional Program in Foundational Reading Skills on
Early Literacy Skills of Students in Kindergarten and First Grade
Holly B. Lane
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL hlane@ufl.edu
Valentina A. Contesse
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL contesse@coe.ufl.edu
Nicholas A. Gage
WestEd, Gainesville, FL ngage@wested.org
Matthew K. Burns
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL burnsm1@ufl.edu
In press in Reading Research Quarterly
Funding: The research was funded by a generous financial gift from Sue and James Patterson.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. Although the
first and second authors are authors of the instructional program being studied, they do not
benefit financially from the distribution of the program.
Ethics: The research methods used here were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Florida.
Corresponding Author: Matthew Burns
1221 SW 5th Avenue
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32601
burnsm1@ufl.edu
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 2
Abstract
Research has demonstrated the positive effects of systematically teaching phonemic awareness
and phonics in kindergarten and first grade, but many commonly used reading curricula do not
adequately incorporate these foundational skills. In this study, we examined the efficacy of an
instructional program (UFLI Foundations) in foundational reading skills (i.e., phonemic
awareness and phonics) with students in kindergarten and first grade. We compared students who
received a full year of the instructional program to propensity score matched control students,
who received business-as-usual instruction, with a cross-cohort quasi-experimental design.
Multilevel modeling results demonstrated that adding instruction in foundational skills increased
early literacy skills scores by more than 1.0 standard deviation. Further, we found that students
of teachers who taught with greater adherence to the UFLI Foundations program had larger
effects. Implications and future directions are discussed.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 3
Effect of an Instructional Program in Foundational Reading Skills on
Early Literacy Skills of Students in Kindergarten and First Grade
Failure to learn early reading skills leads to lower reading comprehension later in
elementary school (Double et al., 2019; Paige et al., 2019), which can then lead to poverty,
underemployment, and increased likelihood of being incarcerated (World Literacy Foundation,
2018). Research has long shown that effective core instruction in reading can have significant
long-term effects on reducing later reading problems (Foorman et al., 1998). Effective reading
instruction starts with selecting a research-based core reading program, which is defined as the
primary instructional tool (e.g., a published curriculum) used by all teachers to teach reading to
all students in each grade (Simmons, 2006) and implementing the program for at least 90
minutes each day (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000).
Effective Foundational Reading Instruction
Early literacy instruction should primarily focus on developing students' foundational
reading skills, including phonemic awareness, decoding, encoding, and reading connected text
(Foorman et al., 2016). Learning language is an important goal of early literacy instruction, but
learning how to read words through interpreting sound-symbol relationships is equally important
to reading comprehension (Castles et al., 2018; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Lonigan et al., 2018).
Phonemic awareness instruction in kindergarten and first grade can have a positive effect (g =
0.63) on reading development (Rice et al., 2022), especially if instruction focuses on isolating,
blending, and segmenting phonemes, incorporates manipulation of letters (Clemens et al, 2021;
NRP, 2000), and teaches articulatory gestures used to produce the sounds (Boyer & Ehri, 2011).
A large body of research also confirms that knowledge of grapheme-phoneme
correspondences and subsequent word reading skills are generally developed through explicit
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 4
and systematic phonics instruction (Ehri, 2020; Foorman et al., 2016; NRP, 2000), which should
be a primary focus of early literacy instruction (Piasta & Wagner, 2010). Students in early
elementary grades with limited letter knowledge can acquire grapheme-phoneme
correspondences through explicit instruction (Vadasy & Sanders, 2021), which is more effective
when the students are taught how to blend phonemes without breaking the speech stream (i.e.,
connected phonation; Gonzalez-Frey & Ehri, 2021). Teaching children how to encode words, or
producing the grapheme to match the given verbally stated phoneme (e.g., spelling; Weiser &
Mathes, 2011), leads to additional benefit beyond decoding instruction alone (Conrad et al.,
2019; Henbest & Apel, 2017).
Effective phonics instruction in early elementary school includes explicit and systematic
teaching (McLeskey et al., 2017) with ample opportunities to respond (MacSuga-Gage & Gage,
2015) and corrective feedback (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Royer et al.,
2019). Practicing decoding and encoding skills can include word work with manipulative letters
(Pullen & Lane, 2014) and reading decodable texts that contain the grapheme being taught and
those already learned (Dilgard et al., 2022). Practicing reading the words in text can help develop
automatically decoding of words (Ehri, 2020) so that students can focus their cognitive energy
on understanding the words (Kim et al., 2021; Samuels & Flor, 1997; Torgesen & Hudson,
2006). Additional components of effective phonics instruction include interleaving practice of
new and review concepts (Brunmair & Richter, 2019; Jones & Reutzel, 2012) and small-group
review sessions (Mellard et al., 2010).
Effective Foundational Reading Programs
Although explicit instruction in foundational reading skills is important in early
elementary grades, many commonly used reading curricula do not adequately incorporate
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 5
explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness in kindergarten and first grade (EdWeek
Research Center, 2020; Reutzel et al., 2014). Perhaps one reason why foundational skills are not
often explicitly represented in core instructional programs in early elementary is because it is not
clear how to best do so, especially with a class of over 20 students with different skills and
backgrounds (Hindman et al., 2020). Some teacher preparation programs may also not include
sufficient attention to the code-related knowledge of pre-service teachers (Tortorelli et al., 2021).
Previous research (Rafdal et al., 2011) has attempted to add components of foundational
reading (Fuchs et al., 2001) to core instructional reading programs when they were not
sufficiently emphasized in the core program. Adding sound play (phonemic awareness),
practicing letter sounds, reading common words, reading decodable words that contained the
taught letter sounds, and reading sentences made from the words in the lesson led to moderate
effects (d = 0.30 to 0.50) on early literacy measures with kindergarten students (Rafdal et al.,
2011), but the program was implemented 4 days per week for only 18 weeks. Other research
efforts added reading fluency to core instructional programs with positive effects (Maki et al.,
2020; McMaster et al., 2006), but the added component likely did not provide enough support in
foundational reading skills to support students in kindergarten and first grade.
UFLI Foundations
An instructional program was developed by the University of Florida Literacy Institute
(UFLI) to address foundational reading skills. Specifically, UFLI Foundations: An Explicit and
Systematic Phonics Program (UFLI Foundations; Lane & Contesse, 2022) was designed to
develop phonemic awareness, decoding and encoding skills, and proficiency in reading
connected text. The program employs explicit concept introductions (Archer & Hughes, 2011;
McLeskey et al., 2017) and practice opportunities (MacSuga-Gage & Gage, 2015) to increase the
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 6
likelihood of student success.
The program was developed and piloted in one school district in Florida with extensive
input about lesson design, useability, feasibility, and student learning from 12 teachers, a literacy
coach, and a school principal. The resulting UFLI Foundations was written to be implemented as
part of a comprehensive reading program with efficacy and ease of use as key goals in its
development. Supporting materials, including videos available on the internet, lesson slide decks,
practice passages, a virtual blending board, and a virtual word work board, have also been
developed and made available to users.
Fidelity and Foundational Reading Instruction
Even if foundational reading skills are taught as part of typical core instruction, as with
UFLI Foundations, there may still be less than desired outcomes if the instruction is not
implemented as intended, or with instructional fidelity (Sanetti et al., 2021). There appears to be
a direct link between instructional fidelity and effectiveness (Noell, 2014), and omitting aspects
of planned instruction can negatively affect how well students acquire the skill being taught
(Carroll et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2015). Although increasing teacher knowledge may increase
the fidelity with which instruction is implemented, there are many additional factors as well
(Coles et al., 2015). Fortunately, there is increased interest in instructional fidelity in education
research (DiGennaro Reed & Codding, 2014), but few studies actually relate fidelity to student
outcomes (Brand et al., 2019; van Dijk et al., 2023). The lack of research linking outcomes to
fidelity of whole-class instruction in reading is especially problematic and suggests an important
and urgent area for additional research (Okkinga et al., 2016).
Purpose
Given the demonstrated positive effects of systematically teaching phonemic awareness
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 7
and phonics in kindergarten and first grade, and the need to support early foundational skills in
early elementary classrooms, the goal of the current study was to examine the impact of UFLI
Foundations on the early reading skills among students in kindergarten and first grade. The
following research questions guided the study: (a) what are the effects of UFLI Foundations on
early reading skills of kindergarten and first-grade students in comparison to students who did
not receive the program, and (b) what effect does instructional fidelity have on student
outcomes?
Methods
The research questions were addressed with a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design
with baseline equivalence. The comparison group consisted of students in the same grade-levels
in the same schools during the prior year and received business-as-usual (BAU) instruction.
Participants
This study was conducted in elementary schools in one school district in north central
Florida. The school district had 21 elementary schools and started implementing UFLI
Foundations with all students in kindergarten through second grade in fall of 2021. Thus, none
of the students received the program during the 2020-2021 school year, and data from students
during that school year served as the control group. The 2020-2021 school year was the year that
immediately followed virtual instruction due to the COVID pandemic. All Florida schools
offered in-person instruction during the 2020-2021 school year. Some schools offered hybrid and
fully online instructional options. The current study focused on students that were physically in
school during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The percentage of third-grade students
who scored in the proficient range on the state test for reading in 2020-2021 was 53.3%, which
decreased only slightly to 52.1% during the 2021-2022 school year and suggested that the two
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 8
groups were likely comparable across the 2 years.
Although all students in grades K-2 received UFLI Foundations, the district collected
data on only kindergarten and first grade students during 2020-2021, and only data from students
in kindergarten and first grade were used in this study. Overall, data were available from 4,064
students in kindergarten and 4,425 students in first grade. However not every student had a pre
(fall) and post (spring) score available. Therefore, we removed all students without pre or post
scores to accurately match on pre-test scores. Further, we used a treatment on the treated
approach and students without pre- or posttest were likely not in the school at the beginning or
end of the school year. District policy requires all students to complete DIBELS during the
assessment window and to conduct make-ups with students that were absent.
Students in the 2021-2022 cohort (treatment group) were matched to students in the
2020-2021 cohort (control) based on pretest scores and demographics (see details below).
Unfortunately, an equivalent group could not be identified when using the full sample, likely
because the two groups had similar sample sizes and the distribution of scores at pretest were
different. Essentially, when using the full sample and all available covariates, the treatment and
control students were not equivalent (i.e., g < 0.25). We made an a priori decision that the groups
needed to be baseline equivalent to meet rigorous standards (i.e., What Works Clearinghouse,
2022). Therefore, we focused our study on students with pretest scores that were below the
pretest median score, which resulted in a final full sample of 1,429 kindergarten students (564
BAU control and 865 treatment) and 1,338 1st grade students (565 BAU control and 773
treatment). The sample size difference was due to fewer students in 2020-2021 having both fall
and spring scores because some parents did not send their students back in person at the
beginning of the school year.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 9
Tables 1 and 2 present the demographic characteristics for each sample described above.
Across all samples, approximately 40% of students were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and 35%
were White. The majority (more than 80%) of students were eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch. Approximately 12% of students in kindergarten and 18% of first grade students were
eligible for special education services. The largest differences between groups were for
kindergarten students eligible for special education services. Almost twice as many students
were eligible in 2020-2021 than in 2021-2022.
Measures
Reading skills were measured using the eighth edition of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS® 8th Edition Assessment (University of Oregon, 2023). The
DIBELS assessment includes several subtests and an aggregated composite score, which was
used in this study. The following subtests, each measuring a specific reading component skill,
were included in the composite score: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency–Correct Letter Sounds (NWF-CLS), and Oral Reading
Fluency (ORF). The ORF data were included in the composite for first-grade students only. We
used the median composite score to create the sample for propensity score matching to limit the
influence of outliers. The median composite score was 306 for kindergarten and 333 for 1st
grade. Thus, all students who participated in the study scored below those two scores. We used
the composite score for all analyses for two reasons. First, different subtests are used at different
times and, as a result, the subtests are different for fall and spring by grade-level. Second, the
purpose of this study was to explore the overall effect on student’s early literacy skills and the
composite score represents overall literacy skills by time and grade-level.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 10
Test–retest reliability estimates for DIBELS data for students in the elementary grades
have ranged from 0.92 to 0.97 and alternate-form reliability data have ranged from 0.89 to 0.94
(Smolkowski & Cummings, 2016). The DIBELS assessment was administered each year by
school personnel at the beginning of the school year in September (pretest) and again at the end
of the school year in March/April (posttest). DIBELS is a widely used measure of reading skills
and has established evidence of reliability and validity (University of Oregon, 2018-2020).
Instructional Program
UFLI Foundations was the foundational early literacy instructional program for the study
and was taught for 30 minutes each day for the course of the school year. The district used a
comprehensive reading program intended to support all areas of reading as the core instructional
program, and students in the BAU control condition received the reading program without UFLI
Foundations. The district decided to use UFLI Foundations in 2021-2022 because district
personnel wanted to better support foundational skills after the COVID-19 pandemic, and UFLI
Foundations followed a scope and sequence designed to ensure that students systematically
acquired foundational reading skills and could apply each skill with automaticity and confidence.
The scope and sequence begin with the introduction of phonemes (speech sounds), graphemes
(the letters and letter combinations used to represent speech sounds in writing), and the
correspondences between them. Students learn to apply this knowledge of grapheme-phoneme
correspondences to read and spell words and reading connected text.
UFLI Foundations also emphasizes students’ awareness of articulatory gestures, or how
the mouth looks and feels when producing specific sounds. A phoneme can be defined as both
the smallest unit of speech sound and the physical act used to produce the sound (Browman &
Goldstein, 1989). Thus, to have phonemic awareness means to be aware of both the sound and
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 11
the articulatory gesture, which includes noticing, for example, the placement of the lips and
tongue and whether the vocal folds are vibrating (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985, 1989; Liberman
et al., 1989). Methods that develop awareness of articulatory gestures have been found to
promote word reading skills (Boyer & Ehri, 2011; Castiglioni-Spalten & Ehri, 2003).
As students progress through the scope and sequence, they learn about more complex
concepts, such as syllables and morphemes, which equips them to read longer words. The UFLI
Foundations manual includes a suggested sequence of lessons for each grade level, K-2. A
typical UFLI Foundations lesson consists of eight steps and is taught in a whole class setting
across 2 school days, for 30 minutes per day (see Figure 1). During each step in the lesson,
students learn and apply skills and strategies essential to independent reading. The sequence of
the session steps is intended to provide a logical progression to build students’ proficiency and
confidence. Extensive interleaved practice in the skills is intended to promote students’
orthographic mapping of words (Ehri, 2014). The program also includes weekly progress
monitoring assessments and guidance for teachers on how to use data from the assessments to
guide planning and implementation of small-group support.
Lesson Components
As shown in Figure 1, UFLI Foundations includes eight steps in each lesson. The pacing
of each lesson is critical in developing accuracy and automaticity. One lesson is divided into two
30-minute sessions across 2 days. The first day of the lesson includes Steps 1 through 5. The
second day includes a review of Step 5 and continues through Step 8. How each step is
implemented depends on the students’ level of skill development and reading proficiency, but the
basic format for the steps remains constant for most lessons.
On Day 1 of the lesson, the first four steps serve as a warm-up and review of previously
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 12
taught concepts. Students begin by orally blending phonemes into words and segmenting words
into phonemes (Step 1: Phonemic Awareness). Next, they build automaticity in previously
introduced grapheme-phoneme correspondences by producing the phoneme associated with a
presented grapheme (Step 2: Visual Drill) and by writing the grapheme associated with a
presented phoneme (Step 3: Auditory Drill). For the last portion of review, students connect
phonemic awareness skills with their grapheme-phoneme knowledge to practice decoding words
(Step 4: Blending Drill). Every lesson includes an introduction of a new concept--in most cases,
a new grapheme-phoneme correspondence (Step 5: New Concept). Students learn the placement
of the grapheme in words and the articulatory gesture used to produce the phoneme, and they
practice the formation of the letter or letters. Finally, students apply their new knowledge
through guided practice reading and spelling words.
Day 2 begins with a brief review of the new concept introduced on Day 1 (i.e., Step 5).
The next portion of the lesson is devoted to practicing reading and spelling both regular and
irregular words. The regular words portion (Step 6: Word Work) focuses on applying both the
newly learned grapheme-phoneme correspondence and other recently learned correspondences.
The irregular words portion of the lesson (Step 7: Irregular Words) includes high-frequency
words that (a) cannot be readily decoded because the word contains grapheme-phoneme
correspondences are unique to that word or a few words (permanently irregular words) or (b)
include grapheme-phoneme correspondences students have not yet learned (temporarily irregular
words). In the final step of the lesson (Step 8: Connected Text), students learn to apply what they
have learned by practicing reading and writing connected text, which includes reading sentences,
writing sentences, and reading a decodable passage. The passages and words practiced were
carefully developed to include only previously taught grapheme-phoneme correspondences.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 13
Materials
Teachers were provided with a comprehensive manual that included background
information necessary to implement the program, a detailed scope and sequence of 128 phonics
skills, and detailed lesson plans. Teachers also received a slide deck to accompany each lesson.
The slide decks provide students with visual support for learning the lesson’s content. The
provided lesson materials were intended to make implementation fidelity readily attainable,
while also allowing for easy adaptations to meet student needs. Printable materials were also
provided to create a sound wall, which was used in lessons to help students identify the
articulatory features of each phoneme. Each student was provided with a set of magnetic letters,
as well as a dry-erase board and marker. Web-based apps were also provided for use in each
lesson, including a Virtual Blending Board in Step 4, which was used to develop automaticity in
decoding, and a Virtual Word Work Mat, which was used as an alternative form of manipulative
letters for the word work in Step 6.
Data Collection
The school district provided the authors with the DIBELS data for all K-1 students in the
district for 2 consecutive years at the end of the 2021-2022 school year. The data were
deidentified by using a unique anonymous identifier for each child, and also included a series of
demographic characteristics, including grade, gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status.
Instructional Fidelity
Teachers were observed with an implementation checklist represented in Figure 2. The
checklist contained 31 total items across the 2 days, but not every item was relevant to each
lesson. Thus, instructional fidelity was rated from 0 (very poor fidelity) to 4 (consistently high
fidelity) on both adherence and dosage, which also allowed for both aspects of fidelity to be
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 14
placed on the same scale. Teachers were observed by either an instructional coach or school
administrator using the checklist. Adherence was defined as the extent to which the program
steps were implemented as planned and dosage as the frequency and duration (Sanetti et al.,
2021). Each rater was trained on the fidelity rubric by UFLI staff. The coach or building
administrator supported UFLI Foundations implementation over the course of the school year,
and at the end of the year, rated adherence and dosage for each teacher to represent
implementation fidelity over the course of the year. Adherence was evaluated by observing if
each step of the lesson was implemented, if lesson components followed the recommended
sequence, implementing correct steps on each day of instruction, and using the correct materials.
Dosage was rated based on how often the teachers implemented lessons, including whether
lessons were taught every day, if the individual steps and full lessons were the recommended
lengths, and if all students were included in instruction every day.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, we first used multiple imputation to impute missing covariate scores.
We did not impute any DIBELS scores, only the demographic variables. Next, we used the
pretest scores and demographic variables, which included race/ethnicity, gender, free or reduced-
price lunch status, and special education status, to propensity score match students in the
treatment condition to students in the BAU control condition. This approach ensured baseline
equivalence on all covariates and pre-test measures. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods
are designed to reduce bias in treatment effect estimates in experimental design studies that
cannot randomly assign to conditions (Leite, 2017).
A propensity score is defined as the conditional probability of treatment assignment
based on all available covariates (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983) and can be used for one-to-one
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 15
matching of students receiving the treatment condition to students in a BAU condition. The value
of PSM is that a covariate equivalent comparison group can be matched to a treatment group to
meet established research standards, such as the What Works Clearinghouse standards (n.d.).
Furthermore, PSM treatment estimates have been found to be as accurate as those from RCT
studies (Fortson et al., 2012).
We estimated propensity scores using logistic regression following procedures outlined
by Leite (2017). Specifically, treatment was coded as a dichotomous indicator and used as the
dependent variable in a logistic regression model, with all covariates, including all pretest
measures. The propensity score was then the predicted probability of a student being assigned to
the treatment or control group based on the model covariates. Predicting assignment to treatment
or control group reduces selection bias by establishing equivalence on the included model
covariates.
Next, we used each student’s estimated propensity score to match them using the one-to-
one optimal matching method (Rosenbaum, 1989), which minimizes global propensity score
distance (i.e., predicted probability of being in the treatment or comparison group) to a student in
one of the control schools by finding the smallest average absolute distance across all the
matched students. We used the one-to-one optimal matching algorithm with matchit (Ho et al.,
2017) and optmatch (Hansen et al., 2016) packages in R (R Core Team, 2021). To confirm
covariate equivalence, we calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes (g) for pre-test
scores, by treatment condition, where equivalence was defined as g < .25 standard deviation
units (WWC, 2021).
Finally, we assessed impacts of UFLI Foundations on student outcomes using the
following multilevel model:
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 16
if the outcome for student i in teacher j in school k; is set to 1 for treatment and
0 for control; are student-level covariates, including all with equivalence values (g) greater than
.05 standard deviation units; , and are school, teacher, and student random effects,
respectively. Treatment impacts were assessed using the estimate of . We then estimated the
moderating effect of fidelity of implementation by extending the model above by including an
interaction between the treatment condition and a teachers’ fidelity category. To explore this
interaction, we conducted a simple slopes analysis using the sim_slopes() function in the R
package interactions (Long, 2024).
Results
The first research question examined the pre and post test scores by treatment condition
for the baseline equivalence propensity score matched students. We established equivalence on
all baseline characteristic, including race (White: K g = 0.03, 1st g = 0.03; Black: K g = -0.02, 1st
-0.09; Hispanic: K g = 0.03, 1st g = 0.12), gender (Male: K g = -0.01, 1st g = 0.00), free and
reduced price lunch (Eligible: K g = 0.17; 1st g = 0.19), and special education status (Eligible: K
g =-0.19, 1st g = 0.01). As shown in Table 3, the two groups were also equivalent (g < 0.25) on
pre-test scores (K g = 0.05, 1st g = - 0.11), but the posttest scores were higher for the students
receiving UFLI Foundations than students in the control condition. The effect size, controlled for
pretest, was g = 1.20 for kindergarten students and g = 1.42 for first grade when using the pretest
standard deviation in the effect size calculation.
Next, we estimated the multilevel models. First, we estimated empty, or intercept only
models to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficients. The largest intraclass correlation (ICC)
was between kindergarten teachers, suggesting that about 13% of the variance was between the
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 17
teachers. All other ICC values were less than .10, suggesting little difference between levels.
Next, we examined the primary treatment effect. As shown in Table 4, the coefficient for both
kindergarten and 1st grade was statistically significant. When adjusting for student
characteristics, the effect size increased to g = 1.44 for kindergarten and g = 2.04 for first grade
using the baseline standard deviation for each grade-level.
The second research question inquired about teachers’ instructional fidelity via ratings by
literacy coaches or administrators. Each teacher was rated from 0 to 4 on both adherence and
dosage, with 4 indicating high fidelity. The mean adherence score was 3.29 (SD = 0.85) and the
mean dosage score was 3.68 (SD = 0.70). We re-estimated the multilevel models but added an
interaction term between each indicator of fidelity and the treatment indicator (see Table 5). We
found statistically significant, positive interaction effects for adherence, suggesting that students
in classrooms where teachers adhered to the UFLI Foundations program as designed performed
statistically significantly higher at the end of the school year than students in classrooms where
teachers did not adhere to program procedures. We found no interaction effect for treatment and
dosage. Simple slope analysis for Adherencerevealed that the slope of treatment was significant
when Adherence was one standard deviation above the mean (K β = 28.94, SE = 2.85, p < .01;
1st β = 14.13, SE = 2.11, p < .01), at the mean (K β = 22.72, SE = 2.02, p < .01; 1st β = 10.94, SE
= 1.47, p < .01), and one standard deviation below the mean (K β = 16.49, SE = 2.84, p < .01; 1st
β = 7.74, SE = 2.14, p < .01) for both Kindergarten and 1st grade models.
These results suggest that the relationship between treatment and adherence strengthens
as adherence increases based on β values, but all three are statistically significant. To better
understand the nature of this interaction, we plotted the relationship between treatment and
adherence at three levels of adherence (−1 SD, M, +1 SD). The interaction plot (see Figure 2)
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 18
shows that the slope of adherence becomes steeper as adherence increases, confirming the results
of the simple slopes analysis.
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to examine the effects of receiving instruction in
foundational reading skills with UFLI Foundations among students in kindergarten and first
grade who demonstrated potential for reading difficulties. Although the treatment and control
groups were similar at baseline, due to PSM, the foundational reading skill program led to a large
effect (g = 1.20 to g = 2.04). Moreover, there was a positive relationship between instructional
fidelity adherence and student outcomes. The results were consistent with research that found
positive effects for explicitly teaching phonics in early elementary (Foorman et al., 2016; Vadasy
& Sanders, 2021), and again supported the importance of teaching these fundamental skills.
The mean DIBELS composite scores for students who participated in the study were in
the At-Risk range according to national norms (University of Oregon, 2020), with the exception
of first-grade students in the treatment group who scored in the Some Risk range by one point (M
= 321 and 320 or lower was At-Risk). The mean posttest score for kindergarten students in the
control group remained in the At-Risk range and the mean score for first-grade students in the
control group was in the Some Risk range by one point (M = 427 and 426 or lower was At-Risk).
Thus, the mean pretest scores for all groups suggested the need for intensive or strategic support
and the mean scores for posttest scores for the control group continued to suggest a need for
support beyond core instruction. The mean posttest score for kindergarten students in the
treatment group was in the Minimal Risk range and suggested a need for core instruction only
(University of Oregon, 2020). The mean posttest score for first-grade students in the treatment
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 19
group scored in the Some-Risk range by one point (M = 440 and 441 or higher was Minimal
Risk).
The current data also provide evidence that UFLI Foundations was effective as a
foundational reading skills program for improving early literacy skills. UFLI Foundations
systematically teaches encoding (Conrad et al., 2019; Henbest & Apel, 2017; Weiser & Mathes,
2011), blending phonemes without breaking the speech stream (Gonzalez-Frey & Ehri, 2021),
and articulatory gestures to make the sounds (Boyer & Ehri, 2011), and involves interleaving
practice of new and review concepts (Brunmair & Richter, 2019; Jones & Reutzel, 2012),
immediate feedback (Royer et al., 2019), practicing skills by reading decodable texts that contain
either the grapheme being taught or those already learned (Dilgard et al., 2022), and small-group
review sessions (Mellard et al., 2010); and all of the components of the program have been
shown to be effective in previous research. Thus, it is unknown the extent to which the results
could be attributed to teaching decoding, encoding, any individual component of the program, or
any combination of components, which suggests considerable opportunity for future research.
The link between instructional fidelity and student outcomes was not surprising given
that previous research has found a link between fidelity of whole-class instruction in reading and
student learning (Okkinga et al., 2016). However, the significant interaction was only noted for
adherence and not dosage. In this study, dosage was fairly consistent across classrooms. The
estimate of dosage used for the study also included aspects of exposure, which is the frequency
and duration with which students actually participated in the instruction (Sanetti et al., 2021). A
majority of previous reading intervention research reported dosage as an indicator of fidelity, and
only approximately one-quarter to one-third reported adherence, but a minority of the studies
found a link between fidelity and student outcomes with adherence being the component that
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 20
most frequently led to an effect (van Dijk et al., 2020). The current data support the importance
of measuring adherence at least as part of the overall fidelity assessment, and the link between
dosage and other aspects of fidelity appear to be areas in need of additional research.
Implications for Practice
The current data add to the considerable literature demonstrating the positive effects of
explicitly teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondences in early elementary (Foorman et al.,
2016; NRP, 2000; Piasta & Wagner, 2010; Vadasy & Sanders, 2021). Therefore, practitioners
could examine their own practice to ensure that they are teaching grapheme-phoneme
correspondences as part of their literacy instruction with students in kindergarten through second
grades. Moreover, given that foundational reading instruction was again demonstrated to have a
positive effect on reading outcomes, as has also been shown in previous research (Fuchs et al.,
2001; Maki et al., 2020; McMaster et al., 2006), practitioners should consider explicit instruction
in grapheme-phoneme correspondence, decoding, and encoding when the data suggest that
students need stronger foundational reading skills. UFLI Foundations provides an actionable
framework for providing effective instruction in these skills. The teacher-friendly lesson plans,
with recommended teacher language for explicit concept introductions increase the likelihood
that the lessons will result in improved student outcomes. The framework presented in Figures 1
and 2 could present a useful and somewhat generic lesson framework for anyone teaching
foundational reading skills with students in kindergarten and first grade.
Instructional fidelity is important to ensure that positive results can be reasonably
attributed to the instruction (Gage et al., 2020). The current data also support the importance of
implementing instruction with fidelity given that students with teachers who demonstrated higher
adherence to the program’s design also demonstrated higher posttest reading scores. Thus,
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 21
practitioners could assess their own fidelity or have coaches give them feedback as to how well
they adhered to the instruction as designed. Ensuring implementation fidelity should also be
considered a priority for school-based administrators and literacy coaches. Combining high
quality teacher learning activities with an educative curriculum like UFLI Foundations has the
potential to transform classroom practice and, in turn, improve student outcomes.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although the current data are potentially interesting to both practitioners and researchers,
they should be considered within the context of the limitations of the study design. First, the
research was conducted with students in kindergarten and first grade from one school district that
used one specific core reading instructional program. The implications for other grades and core
instructional programs are unknown, which suggests considerable opportunity for future
research. The students were also identified as demonstrating pretest reading scores that fell
below the median score for the grade, which suggests the need for future research with a broader
range of reading skills as well. Second, we assessed outcomes with DIBELS that were
administered by school personnel, and we did not examine the fidelity with which those data
were collected. Although using data provided by school personnel might enhance the
applicability of the data to other schools, the effect on the internal validity of the conclusions
remains unclear. Future researchers could also use more distal outcomes in their studies.
Third, we used a cross-cohort quasi-experimental design with matched participants.
Although students in the treatment and comparison group were different, their pre and post test
data was collected in two different school years. As such, this study would not meet current
What Works Clearinghouse Standards (n.d.) due to the potential time confound on the
measurement of the outcome. Regardless, the results are encouraging and, we believe, provide
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 22
evidence of promise. Fourth, we used pre- and posttests with baseline equivalence and a
comparison group that received BAU instruction. Future research could replicate the design but
could randomly assign participants to treatment or control groups to enhance the internal validity
of the conclusions. Future researchers could also examine the extent to which baseline skill in
reading predicts student growth.
The fifth and sixth limitations were specific to the instructional program and how it was
assessed. We used the UFLI Foundations program, which demonstrated a strong effect.
However, we do not know the effect of other foundational reading skills programs within the
context of the research questions and future researchers could compare the effect of UFLI
Foundations to other foundational reading programs. Finally, we assessed fidelity through a
rating system of adherence and dosage. Although the estimate of fidelity was based on continued
observation of the instruction using detailed fidelity checklists, it was only formally reported one
time using a scoring rubric from 0 to 4 to estimate overall fidelity across the school year. Future
researchers may wish to use a more ongoing assessment of fidelity with the more detailed
observation tool. Moreover, future researchers may wish to assess other aspects of fidelity, such
as quality, that were not assessed in the current study, and could measure student engagement
during instruction as a dosage variable. School leaders could also use low student engagement as
an indicator of teachers needing additional feedback and support. We also did not assess the
fidelity with which the primary core instructional program was implemented. Finally, future
researchers could examine the relationship between teachers' professional knowledge in reading
instruction and their instructional fidelity. Understanding how teachers' expertise influences their
adherence to the program and the subsequent impact on student outcomes could help in
designing more effective professional development programs.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 23
Conclusion
Although the study design had its limitations, the current data support UFLI Foundations,
and more generally, explicit phonics instruction that includes instruction on grapheme-phoneme
correspondences, decoding and encoding, and reading connected text as an evidence-based
practice for students in kindergarten and first grade. Moreover, the current study emphasizes the
need to implement explicit instruction with fidelity to improve student outcomes. Additional
research is needed to better establish the evidence base for explicit foundational reading skills
instruction, but given the positive results found here and in previous research, as well as the
number of students who demonstrate difficulties with foundational literacy skills, the additional
research seems warranted.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 24
References
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and efficient teaching
(what works for special-needs learners). Guilford.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Benchmark Education (2018). Benchmark advanced.
https://www.benchmarkeducation.com/benchmark-advance-adelante
Berry, T., Byrd, K. K., Collins, K., & Newton, X. (2009). The effects of Reading Street on
reading achievement: A focus on second year curriculum users. Claremont Graduate
University.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=be6ac9bceedd705ef7c
2570d9e29d3242553ee37
Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters
and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 15(5), 440-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778
Brand, D., Henley, A. J., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Gray, E., & Crabbs, B. (2019). A review of
published studies involving parametric manipulations of treatment integrity. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 28, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-09311-8
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological
units. Phonology, 6(2), 201-251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001019.
Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning
and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029-1052.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 25
Carroll, R. A., Kodak, T., & Fisher, W. W. (2013). An evaluation of programmed treatment-
integrity errors during discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46,
379–394. doi:10. 1002/jaba.49
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from
novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Castiglioni-Spalten, M. L., & Ehri, L. C. (2003). Phonemic awareness instruction: Contribution
of articulatory segmentation to novice beginners' reading and spelling. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 7(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_03
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders:
A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 49, 278–293. 3. http://dx.doi .org/10.1044/1092-4388
Clemens, N. H., Solari, E., Kearns, D. M., Fien, H., Nelson, N. J., Stelega, M., Burns, M. K. St.
Martin, K., & Hoeft, F. (2021). They say you can do phonemic awareness instruction “in
the dark”, but should you? A critical evaluation of the trend toward advanced phonemic
awareness training. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ajxbv
Coles, E. K., Owens, J. S., Serrano, V. J., Slavec, J., & Evans, S. W. (2015). From consultation
to student outcomes: The role of teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs in increasing
integrity in classroom management strategies. School Mental Health, 7, 34-48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9143-2
Conrad, N.J., Kennedy, K., Saoud, W., Scallion, L. & Hanusiak, L. (2019). Establishing word
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 26
representations through reading and spelling: Comparing degree of orthographic learning.
Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 162-177. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-
9817.12256
DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Codding, R. S. (2014). Advancements in procedural fidelity
assessment and intervention: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 23, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-611.
Dilgard, C., Hodges, T. S., & Coleman, J. (2022). Phonics instruction in early literacy:
Examining professional learning, instructional resources, and intervention intensity.
Reading Psychology, 43(8), 541-575. DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2022.2126045
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., Stiff, J. C., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). The importance of early
phonics improvements for predicting later reading comprehension. British Educational
Research Journal, 45(6), 1220-1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3559
EdWeek Research Center (2020). Early reading instruction: Results of a national survey.
Editorial Projects in Education.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling
memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 55, S45-S60.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J.,
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 27
Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner,
R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in
kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role
of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37
Fortson, K., Verbitsky-Savitz, N., Kopa, E., & Gleason, P. (2012). Using an experimental
evaluation of charter schools to test whether nonexperimental comparison group methods
can replicate experimental impact estimates (NCEE technical methods report 2012-
4019). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Otaiba, S. A., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., Braun, M., &
O'Connor, R. E. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A
randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.251
Gage, N., MacSuga-Gage, A., & Detrich, R. (2020). Fidelity of implementation in educational
research and practice. The Wing Institute.
https://www.winginstitute.org/systemsprogram-fidelity
Gonzalez-Frey, S. M., & Ehri, L. C. (2021). Connected phonation is more effective than
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 28
segmented phonation for teaching beginning readers to decode unfamiliar words.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(3), 272-285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1776290
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Hansen, B. B., Fredrickson, M., Buckner, J., Errickson, J., & Solenberger, P. (2018). Optmatch:
Functions for optimal matching (R Package Version 0.9-8).
https://www.cran.rproject.org/web/packages/optmatch/
Henbest, V. S., & Apel, K. (2017). Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence
tell us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39(1), 303-311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116685183
Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric pre- processing for
parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8), 1–28.
https://www.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08
Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science of
reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice.
Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S197-S206. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.345
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The primacy of science in communicating advances in
the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 399-408.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.446
Jenkins, S. R., Hirst, J. M., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). The effects of discrete-trial training
commission errors on learner outcomes: An extension. Journal of Behavioral Education,
24, 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9215-7
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 29
Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Enhanced alphabet knowledge instruction: Exploring a
change of frequency, focus, and distributed cycles of review. Reading Psychology, 33(5),
448-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.545260
Kim, Y. S. G., Quinn, J. M., & Petscher, Y. (2021). What is text reading fluency and is it a
predictor or an outcome of reading comprehension? A longitudinal
investigation. Developmental Psychology, 57(5), 718-732.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001167
Lane, H., & Contesse, V. (2022). UFLI foundations: An explicit and systematic phonics
program. Ventris Learning.
Leite, W. (2017). Practical propensity score methods using R. Sage Publications.
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception
revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1989). A specialization for speech
perception. Science, 243(4890), 489-494. DOI: 10.1126/science.2643163
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and
learning to read. ED427291
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of
automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2),
123-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203
Long, J. A. (2024). interactions: Comprehensive, User-Friendly Toolkit for Probing
Interactions. doi:10.32614/CRAN.package.interactions
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 30
reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and
Special Education, 39(5), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833
MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Gage, N. A. (2015). Student-level effects of increased teacher-directed
opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 273-288.
Maki, K. E., Ittner, A., Pulles, S. M., Burns, M. K., Helman, L., & McComas, J. J. (2022).
Effects of an abbreviated class-wide reading intervention for students in third grade.
Contemporary School Psychology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00343-4
McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis,
T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017). High-
leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR
Center
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies:
The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
22(1), 5-25. DOI: 10.1080/10573560500203491
Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional
intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217-225.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00319.x
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to
read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Noell, G. H. (2014). Research examining the relationships among consultation process, treatment
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 31
integrity, and outcomes. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research
in school consultation (pp. 335-354). Routledge.
Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2018). Effects of reciprocal
teaching on reading comprehension of low‐achieving adolescents. The importance of
specific teacher skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 20-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12082
Paige, D. D., Smith, G. S., Rasinski, T. V., Rupley, W. H., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Nichols, W. D.
(2019). A path analytic model linking foundational skills to Grade 3 state reading
achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 110-120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1445609
Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Learning letter names and sounds: Effects of instruction,
letter type, and phonological processing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
105(4), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.12.008.
Pullen, P. C., & Lane, H. B. (2014). Teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters
and word reading skill development of struggling first grade students. Exceptionality,
22(1), 1-16.
R Core Team. (n.d.). The R Project for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Rafdal, B. H., McMaster, K. L., McConnell, S. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2011). The
Effectiveness of kindergarten peer-assisted learning strategies for students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 299-316.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700303
Reutzel, D. R., Child, A., Jones, C. D., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Explicit instruction in core reading
programs. The Elementary School Journal, 114(3), 406-430.0013-5984/2014/11403-0005
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 32
Rice, M., Erbeli, F., Thompson, C. G., Sallese, M. R., & Fogarty, M. (2022). Phonemic
awareness: A meta‐analysis for planning effective instruction. Reading Research
Quarterly, 57(4), 1259-1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.473
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989). Optimal matching for observational studies. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 84(408), 1024–1032.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in
observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., Dunlap, K. D., & Ennis, R. P. (2019). A systematic review of teacher-
delivered behavior-specific praise on K–12 student performance. Remedial and Special
Education, 40(2), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751054
Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in
reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2), 107-
121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130202
Sanetti, L. M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2021). Treatment fidelity: What it is and why it matters.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 5-11. DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12238
Simmons, D. C. (2006). A consumer’s guide to analyzing a core reading program grades K-3: A
critical elements analysis. Center on Teaching and Learning College of Education,
University of Oregon.
https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/consumers_guide_core_rev_855622#:~:text=A%20core
%20reading%20program%20is,a%20respective%20school%20or%20district.
Smolkowski, K., & Cummings, K. D. (2016). Evaluation of the DIBELS diagnostic system for
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 33
the selection of native and proficient English speakers at risk of reading
difficulties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(2), 103-118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915589017
Torgesen, J.K. & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: critical issues for struggling readers. In
S.J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.). Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading
success. International Reading Association
Tortorelli, L. S., Lupo, S. M., & Wheatley, B. C. (2021). Examining teacher preparation for
code‐related reading instruction: An integrated literature review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 56, S317-S337. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.396
University of Oregon. (2018-2020). DIBELS 8th edition technical manual.
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/DIBELS8-TechnicalManual_04152020.pdf
University of Oregon. (2020). DIBELS® 8th edition benchmark goals updated: July 2020.
Available online at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/2021-
06/DIBELS8thEditionGoals.pdf
University of Oregon. (2023). DIBELS® 8th edition assessment.
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/dibels8
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2021). Introducing grapheme-phoneme correspondences:
Exploring rate and complexity in phonics instruction for kindergarteners with limited
literacy skills. Reading and Writing, 34, 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-
10064-y
van Dijk, W., Lane, H. B., & Gage, N. A. (2023). How do intervention studies measure the
relation between implementation fidelity and students’ reading outcomes? A systematic
review. The Elementary School Journal, 124(1), 56-84.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 34
Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling
performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170-200.DOI:
10.3102/0034654310396719
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). Standards handbook version 4.1. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-
Standards-Handbook-v4- 1-508.pdf
World Literacy Foundation. (2018). The economic & social costs of illiteracy. Retrieved
from TheEconomicSocialCostofIlliteracy-2.pdf.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 35
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics by Treatment Condition for Kindergarten Grade Students
Note. PSM = propensity score matching.
Full
Below Median
PSM
Demographics
Control
(n = 2005)
Treatment
(n = 2059)
Control
(n = 564)
Treatment
(n = 865)
Control
(n = 564)
Treatment
(n =564)
Race
Asian
4.8%
4.7%
2.5%
2.9%
2.7%
2.1%
Black
35.0%
34.7%
44.0%
39.2%
44.0%
42.9%
Hispanic/Latino
11.9%
13.6%
12.1%
15.3%
12.1%
12.8%
Two or more races
6.7%
7.6%
7.3%
7.5%
7.3%
8.0%
White
36.8%
35.8%
32.6%
34.5%
32.6%
33.9%
Other
4.7%
3.6%
1.6%
0.5%
1.4%
0.4%
Gender
Female
46.6%
48.2%
48.0%
48.2%
48.0%
49.8%
Male
49.1%
48.7%
50.7%
51.4%
50.7%
50.0%
Not listed
4.3%
3.2%
1.2%
0.3%
1.2%
0.2%
Free/Reduced Price Lunch
Eligible
84.7%
86.9%
91.7%
94.5%
91.7%
93.8%
Not Eligible
9.4%
8.6%
6.7%
5.2%
6.7%
6.0%
Missing
5.9%
4.5%
1.6%
0.3%
1.6%
0.2%
Special Education
Eligible
16.1%
8.2%
14.9%
7.3%
14.9%
11.0%
Not Eligible
78.0%
87.6%
83.5%
92.4%
83.5%
88.8%
Missing
5.9%
4.3%
1.6%
0.3%
1.6%
0.2%
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 36
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics by Treatment Condition for 1st Grade Students
Full
Below Median
PSM
Demographics
Control
(n = 2243)
Treatment
(n = 2182)
Control
(n = 565)
Treatment
(n = 773)
Control
(n = 565)
Treatment
(n =565)
Race
Asian
4.1%
4.5%
1.6%
1.9%
1.6%
1.8%
Black
33.1%
33.6%
46.0%
40.4%
46.0%
41.8%
Hispanic/Latino
9.6%
12.8%
10.1%
14.6%
10.1%
12.4%
Two or more races
7.0%
7.7%
7.3%
8.4%
7.3%
8.7%
White
39.6%
37.1%
32.6%
33.0%
32.6%
34.2%
Other
6.2%
4.3%
2.5%
1.7%
2.5%
1.2%
Gender
Female
46.7%
47.5%
49.0%
48.1%
49.0%
50.3%
Male
47.1%
48.4%
48.5%
50.6%
48.5%
48.7%
Not listed
6.2%
4.1%
2.5%
1.3%
2.5%
1.1%
Free/Reduced Price Lunch
Eligible
84.0%
84.6%
93.6%
90.8%
93.6%
95.4%
Not Eligible
8.6%
9.3%
3.9%
7.6%
3.9%
3.2%
Missing
7.4%
6.1%
2.5%
1.6%
2.5%
1.4%
Special Education
Eligible
18.5%
15.5%
19.3%
16.8%
19.3%
18.8%
Not Eligible
73.9%
78.5%
78.2%
81.6%
78.2%
79.8%
Missing
7.6%
6.0%
2.5%
1.6%
2.5%
1.4%
Note. PSM = propensity score matching.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 37
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics by Condition and Pre and Post Test for DIBELS Composite Score
Pretest
Posttest
Condition
M
SD
M
SD
Kindergarten
Control
274
18.9
397
24.4
Treatment
275
19.5
421
32.1
1st Grade
Control
320
8.6
427
22.0
Treatment
321
8.2
440
29.9
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 38
Table 4
Variables Predicting Treatment Effects Through Multilevel Models
Kindergarten
1st Grade
Parameter
Estimate
SE
p
Estimate
SE
p
(Intercept)
216.05
12
<0.001
-75.48
22.1
<0.001
Treatment
22.23
1.56
<0.001
11.54
1.11
<0.001
Black
-5.33
1.84
0.004
-4.29
1.27
<0.001
Hispanic
-0.58
2.4
0.808
-1.61
1.77
0.363
Two or more races
-1.33
2.59
0.608
-3.28
2.02
0.105
Asian
11.57
4.22
0.006
1.79
4
0.655
FRL
-0.25
3.44
0.942
-5.48
3.19
0.087
Female
2.42
1.45
0.095
-0.33
1.03
0.747
SPED
-12.26
2.2
<0.001
-3.35
1.33
0.012
Pretest
0.67
0.04
<.0001
1.59
0.07
<0.001
Random Effects
Teacher
131.38
25.23
School
33.24
10.04
Residual
818.06
696.68
Teacher ICC
0.13
0.03
School ICC
0.03
0.01
Note: FRL = free or reduced-price lunch, SPED = special education and ICC = intraclass
correlation coefficient.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 39
Table 5
Moderating Effects of Adherence on Treatment Effects Through Multilevel Models
Kindergarten
First Grade
Parameter
Estimate
SE
p
Estimate
SE
p
(Intercept)
230.93
16.98
<0.001
-88.29
30.62
0.004
Treatment
-1.00
7.88
0.899
-3.97
7.34
0.589
Adherence
-3.28
2.5
0.189
-1.58
2.08
0.449
Black
-6.81
2.3
0.003
-4.19
1.66
0.012
Hispanic
-0.15
2.99
0.960
-0.64
2.32
0.783
Two or more races
-6.01
2.44
0.081
-2.85
2.59
0.271
Asian
14.17
5.99
0.018
4.85
5.9
0.411
FRL
3.52
4.7
0.454
-4.39
3.91
0.263
Female
4.57
1.83
0.013
-0.7
1.36
0.607
SPED
-14.37
2.8
<0.001
-4.32
1.78
0.015
Pretest
0.64
0.05
<0.001
1.64
0.09
<0.001
Treatment x Adherence
7.23
2.32
0.002
4.34
2.08
0.038
Random Effects
Teacher
66.67
22.07
School
44.92
13.2
Residual
563.34
302.77
Teacher ICC
0.11
0.07
School ICC
0.07
0.04
Note: FRL = free or reduced-price lunch, SPED = special education and ICC = intraclass
correlation coefficient.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 40
Figure 1
University of Florida Literacy Institute Foundations Steps and Pacing for a Two-Day Lesson
Step
Time
Day 1
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
2 minutes
Step 2: Visual Drill
3 minutes
Step 3: Auditory Drill
5 minutes
Step 4: Blending Drill
5 minutes
Step 5: New Concept
15 minutes
Day 2
Step 5: Continue New Concept with Review
3 minutes
Step 6: Word Work
6 minutes
Step 7: Irregular Words
6 minutes
Step 8: Connected Text
15 minutes
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 41
Figure 2
Implementation Fidelity Checklist Items for Foundational Reading Program
Part of Lesson
Lesson Component
General
Teacher used blendable sounds throughout the lesson.
Teacher maintained student engagement and attention.
Teacher provided general and behavior-specific praise.
Teacher provided corrective feedback, as needed.
Teacher provided appropriate scaffolding, as needed.
Teacher maintained appropriate lesson pacing.
Step 1 Phonemic
Awareness
2 minutes
Total time:
Teacher provided phoneme blending practice. Total words presented: _____
Teacher provided phoneme segmentation practice. Total words presented: _____
Teacher segmented words correctly (e.g., /s//t//u//m//p/).
Step 2 Visual Drill
3 minutes
Total time:
Teacher presented previously taught graphemes.
Total graphemes presented: _____
Step 3 Auditory Drill
5 minutes
Total time:
Teacher presented previously taught phonemes.
Total phonemes presented: _____
Step 4 Blending Drill
5 minutes
Total time:
Teacher presented words to practice decoding using previously taught concepts.
Total words presented: _____
Step 5 New Concept
15 minutes
Total time:
Explicit introduction of new concept included:
Visual (grapheme) and auditory (phoneme) presentation of concept (e.g., ck /k/).
Placement discussion with example words.
Articulatory gesture explanation includes teacher modeling and student practice
opportunity.
Letter formation practice, if applicable.
FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS 42
Word reading practice included:
At least 1 teacher modeling example (I do).
Student guided practice opportunities (we do). Total: _____
Word spelling practice included:
At least 1 teacher modeling example (I do).
Student guided practice opportunities (we do). Total: _____
Step 5 New Concept
Review
3 minutes
Total time:
Brief concept review included:
Review of placement, key words, and articulatory gesture.
Student word reading guided practice (we do). Total: _____
Step 6 Word Work
6 minutes
Total time:
Teacher conducted word work using manipulative letters.
_____ # decoding opportunities
_____ # encoding opportunities
Step 7 Irregular Words
6 minutes
Total time:
Review of previously taught irregular words included:
Word reading practice. Total: _____
Word spelling practice. Total: _____
Introduction of new irregular words included:
Discussion of irregular parts of new word(s).
New words taught:
Student word reading practice. Total: _____
Student word spelling practice. Total: _____
Step 8 Connected Text
15 minutes
Total time:
Teacher provided students sentence reading practice. Total: _____
Teacher provided students sentence spelling practice. Total: _____
Teacher provided students opportunity to read decodable text.
