Joshua King’s scientific contributions

Effective literacy instruction is crucial for educational success, and the debate between phonics and Whole Language approaches has been longstanding. In 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) conducted a meta-analysis highlighting the superiority of phonics over Whole Language instruction. However, resistance to Systematic Phonics instruction persists in educational institutions, with some proponents advocating for a '“balanced literacy”' approach. “Balanced literacy” encompasses various programs, such as Reading Recovery, Leveled Literacy Instruction, and Units of Study, but a universally accepted definition remains elusive. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of 44 “structured literacy” studies and 34 “balanced literacy” studies. The “structured literacy” programs demonstrated a mean unweighted effect size of .47, 95% confidence intervals of .35 to .60 and a fixed weighted mean effect size of .44. These findings are essentially identical to the findings of the NRP (2000), indicating that systematic phonics research findings have been consistent for twenty years. “Balanced literacy” programs, which were consistent with the NRP (2000) definitions of whole language, had a mean unweighted effect size of .21, 95% confidence intervals of -.04 to .41 and a weighted mean of .33. These findings suggest that “structured literacy” approaches tend to yield larger positive effects on student learning compared to “balanced literacy” approaches. However, they also suggested that whole language programs may have improved slightly, over the last two decades. Structured literacy programs, were especially superior over the long term, compared to balanced literacy, with a mean difference in effect sizes of .28.

Reading Recovery(RR) is a constructivist reading intervention used to provide tier 3 instruction to struggling readers in the first grade. The program has been previously evaluated and found effective by Evidence for ESSA (John Hopkins University), What Works Clearing House (intervention report institute for education sciences 2013), and in a meta-analysis by D’Agostino et al. (J Educ Stud Placed Risk 21:29–46, 2016) However, the National Reading Panel (United States Government, 2000), showed some conflicting findings. Moreover, May et al. (CPRE Research Reports, 2016), suggested that RR might be detrimental over the long term, for student reading outcomes. This meta-analysis examined 19 experimental and quasiexperimental studies to evaluate the efficacy of RR over the short and long term. Cohen’s d, effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the mean difference between the treatment groups and controls at post-test, then dividing by the pooled standard deviation. Effect sizes were then weighted by their inverse variance to account for sample size. For assessments taken within the assessment year, the meta-analysis showed a mean overall effect size of .19, a weighted mean effect size of .05, and 95% confidence intervals of = [-.16, 54.] For assessments taken more than 1 year after the intervention, the meta-analysis showed a mean negative effect size of -.14 and 95% confidence intervals of = [-.59, .31], with a weighted effect size of -.21. These results suggest that RR may not currently be the most effective approach, for literacy intervention.

A meta-analysis comparing the effects of different reading comprehension pedagogies on standardized and non-standardized reading comprehension assessments.