ReadWorks is based on the highest quality research, beginning with the seminal findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP) and RAND Reading Study Group, and continuing with the most highly regarded, current, research evidence.
Complementing the written research, we’ve developed ReadWorks by working with some of the best researchers and practitioners in the country, in addition to teachers and principals in classrooms across the nation.
Below are the core research-based pillars of ReadWorks.
The findings of the National Reading Panel.
The RAND Reading Study Group, "Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension" (2002)
Explicit teaching of comprehension skills. To help achieve better outcomes, all ReadWorks lessons provide teachers with specific, measurable learning objectives and give students language for modeling comprehension skills. [Details]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (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 (NIH Publication No.00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
“The rationale for the explicit teaching of comprehension skills is that comprehension can be improved by teaching students to use specific cognitive strategies or to reason strategically when they encounter barriers to understanding what they are reading. Readers acquire these strategies informally to some extent, but explicit or formal instruction in the application of comprehension strategies has been shown to be highly effective in enhancing understanding. The teacher generally demonstrates such strategies for students until the students are able to carry them out independently” P. 14
• RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension.
“Teachers must teach comprehension explicitly, beginning in the primary grades and continuing through high school.” P. xii
“The explicitness with which teachers teach comprehension strategies makes a difference in learner outcomes, especially for low-achieving students.” P. 33
• Brophy, J., and Good, T. (1986). “Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement,” in Handbook of research on teaching, ed. M. Wittrock (New York: Macmillan), 3rd ed., pp. 328–375.
• Rosenshine, Barak. “Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know,” American Educator Vol.36, No.1 (Spring 2012): 12-19, 39. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Rosenshine.pdf
• Clark, Richard E., Kirschner, Paul A. and Sweller, John. “Putting students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction,” American Educator Vol.36, No.1 (Spring 2012): 6-11. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf
Frequent interactive read-alouds. ReadWorks lessons in grades K-4 combine reading and listening to help younger readers develop comprehension skills. [Details]
• Williams, Joanna. “Explicit Instruction Can Help Primary students learn to comprehend expository text”. C.C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension process: Research-based best practices, 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Press.
“Second graders are often not fluent readers. But they can benefit from the type of explicit comprehension described… that combines listening and reading. Our research has shown that an explicit, structured approach to primary grade comprehension can be effective.” (p. 180)
• Snow C.E., Burns S., and Griffin P. Preventing reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1998.
• Whitehurst, G.J., Zevenbergen, A.A., Crone, D.A., Schultz,M.D., Velting, O.N., & Fischel, J.E., “Outcomes of an Emergent Literacy Intervention from Head Start through Second Grade.” Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (1999): 261–272.
Use of the gradual release of responsibility methodology. All ReadWorks lessons let the teacher first model reading comprehension skills and then slowly release responsibility to the student through practice and eventually independent work. [Details]
• Pearson, P. David and M.C. Gallagher. 1983. The Instruction of Reading Comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8:317-344.
Coined by Pearson and Gallagher in this 1983 study, the Gradual Release of Responsibility model (GRR) was found to be one model of instruction most successful for teaching reading comprehension. The students using the GRR were found to be more successful in summarizing, asking questions, predicting, and comprehending text. Further, students taught with the GRR model were more likely to self-monitor while reading.
• RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension.
“Successful comprehension instruction for the poor comprehender is characterized by explicit modeling by the teacher, additional opportunities for practice with feedback, skillful adjustments to the learner’s level, and the reader’s mindful engagement with the purposes for reading.” P. 35
• Graves, M.F. and Fitzgerald, J. (2003). “Scaffolding reading experiences for multilingual classrooms”. In G.G. Garcia. English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 96-124). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
“Effective instruction often follows a progression in which the teachers gradually do less of the work and the students gradually assume increased responsibility for their learning. It is through this process of gradually assuming more and more responsibility for their learning that students become competent, independent learners” (p.98)
A robust approach to vocabulary. ReadWorks lessons teach vocabulary directly and indirectly, and give the teacher the language for introducing new words. [Details]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (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 (NIH Publication No.00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
“First, vocabulary should be taught both indirectly and directly. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important. Learning in rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of computer technology all enhance the acquisition of vocabulary. Direct instruction should include task restructuring as necessary and should actively engage the student.” P. 14
“Oral vocabulary is a key to learning to make the transition from oral to written forms, whereas reading vocabulary is crucial to the comprehension processes of a skilled reader.” p.15
• Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (Second Edition). New York: The Guilford Press, 2013.
“A robust approach to vocabulary involves directly explaining the meaning of words along with thought provoking playful interactive follow-up.” P.2
“As children are developing their reading and writing competence, we need to take advantage of their oral and listening competencies to enhance their vocabulary development.” P.48
• Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J., “Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices: A Practice Guide” (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2008.
• Graves, Michael F. The Vocabulary Book: Learning & Instruction, Teachers College Press, 2005. Print
• Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J. Building Academic Vocabulary: Teacher’s Manual, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 1st edition, 2005.
Intentional background knowledge development. ReadWorks lessons take advantage of the fact that students comprehend more when they already know something about the content. [Details]
• Pearson, P.D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). “The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information”. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
In this study, researchers asked 20 second graders to read a passage about spiders. 10 already knew a great deal about spiders, and 10 knew very little. They found that students who already knew about spiders did significantly better than those who did not. Further, they uniformly did better on both explicit and inferential questions.
“The background experiences readers bring to a selection affect the depth to which they can understand it.” P.11
“To ensure more thorough comprehension, teachers might spend more time developing background information prior to reading.” P. 13
• Marzano, Robert J (2004). Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement. ACSD: Alexandria, VA.
“What students already know about the content is one of the strongest indicators of how well they will learn new information relative to the content.” P.1
“Probably one of the most interesting characteristics of background knowledge is that it does not have to be detailed to be useful. In fact, when we retrieve a packet of information for use in working memory, we initially access its surface-level characteristics only.” P.29
• Pardo, Laura S. “What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Comprehension.” The Reading Teacher Vol. 58, No. 3 (November 2004): 272-280. http://www.learner.org/workshops/teachreading35/pdf/teachers_know_compre...
• Anderson, R.C., and P.D. Pearson. “A Schema-Thematic View of Basic Processes In Reading Comprehension in Handbook of Reading Research, eds. P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal, 255-291. New York: Longman, 1984.
• Pressley, M., & Block, C. C. (2002). “Summing up: What Comprehension Instruction Could Be” in Comprehension Instruction: Research-based Best Practices eds. C. C. Block & M. Pressley. 383-392. New York: Guilford Press, 2002.
Text structure and syntax. ReadWorks lessons provide teachers with content and guidance to help them instruct students in recognizing and understanding non-fiction and narrative text structures. In addition, lessons focus on student comprehension at the sentence level where comprehension often breaks down. [Details]
• Carlisle, Joanne F., Rice, Melinda S. Improving Reading Comprehension: Research-Based Principles and Practices York Press, 2002.
• Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Long, D. L. “The Construction of Knowledge Structures and Inferences During Text Comprehension.” In N. E. Sharkey (Ed.), Advances in Cognitive Science, Vol.1. London: Ellis Horwood, 1986.
• Idol, Lorna. “Group Story Mapping: A Comprehension Strategy for both Skilled and Unskilled Readers.” Journal of Learning Disabilities. vol.20 no. 4 (April 1987): 196-205. http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/20/4/196.full.pdf+html
• Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., De Sisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. “Expository Text Comprehension in the Primary Grade Classroom.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2005): 538-550.
• Williams, J. P., Hall, K.M., & Lauer, K. D. “Teaching Expository Text Structure to Young At-risk Learners: Building the Basics of Comprehension Instruction.” (S. Vaughn & J. P. Williams, Eds.) Exceptionality 12 (2004): 129-144
