Decodable Readers or Non-Controlled Texts? What the Research Says

What type of text is most effective for helping children learn how to read: decodable readers or non-controlled texts?

In this Research Recap blog post, we’re taking a look at research on different types of texts, specifically decodable and non-decodable texts, and their effects on students’ reading skills. We’ll primarily be focusing on a new study, Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions, released by Alia Pugh, Devin M. Kearns, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert.

Why Recent Research Matters: The Science of Reading

Science of Reading is a term used to describe a vast body of research that shows us how children learn to read, which we can use to inform our teaching practices. While the Science of Reading pulls from over 40 years of educational research, that doesn't mean the research has stopped — or even slowed down! In fact, new Science of Reading-based studies continue to be published.

Because research is at the core of the Science of Reading, it’s important for educators to stay informed on any new studies that may affect instruction. However, the reality is that today's teachers are already incredibly busy — few have the time it would require to sit down and sift through dozens of dense research studies and then translate the findings into practical takeaways for classroom instruction.

This is why we’re going to do the work for you! Our literacy experts are keeping their finger on the pulse of what’s new in the Science of Reading, so we can break down any important new studies that get released. With that in mind, let’s take a look at Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions.

About the Authors of This Study

Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions was released by Alia Pugh, Devin M. Kearns, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert and published in Reading Research Quarterly in June 2023. These authors are education experts and former teachers who have spent years studying how children learn how to read:

• Alia Pugh is a former teacher and a graduate research assistant pursuing her Ph.D. in Special Education at the University of Connecticut.
• Devin Kearns, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Special Education at the University of Connecticut and an education researcher who studies reading disabilities including dyslexia. He is a former teacher, literacy coach, and reading specialist.
• Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Ph.D. is president and CEO of TextProject and a research associate at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Dr. Hiebert has worked in the field of early reading acquisition for 45+ years. She is an author for Savvas Learning Company’s myPerspectives® and myView® Literacy, as well as an advisor on SuccessMaker.

What Did Prior Research Say About Text Types?

Alia Pugh, Devin M. Kearns, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert wanted to investigate the relationship between the texts utilized in beginning reading interventions — decodable, non-controlled, both, or neither — and their impact on student reading achievement.

Before they got to work on their own study, they first reviewed research that had already been done on the topic.

Unfortunately, they found that little research has been done to evaluate the relationship between the types of texts used in intensive reading interventions and the resulting student achievement outcomes.

The team was able to identify three previous research studies that explored the effects of decodable texts on reading outcomes: Jenkins et al. (2004), Mesmer (2005), and Cheatham and Allor (2012). These three studies didn’t have clear, definitive outcomes: they described variable results of different text types on reading achievement, with only tentative support for using decodable texts as an instructional tool to improve reading outcomes.

Similarly, other studies examining non-decodable texts' efficacy provided weak evidence of their impact on reading performance. For instance, Hoffman et al. (2001) found that only high-achieving readers achieved the required word-level accuracy for text comprehension when reading non-decodable texts.

A Reading Research Meta-Analysis Focused on Text Types

Taking these past studies into account, Pugh, Kearns, and Hiebert chose to examine three meta-analyses (Wanzek et al. 2016 & 2018, Gersten et al. 2020) that studied the effects of reading interventions on the achievement of students with reading struggles in kindergarten through third grade.

If you’re unfamiliar with meta-analyses, here’s a quick summary: A meta-analysis is a popular and frequently used statistical technique where researchers gather a number of studies related to the topic they are investigating. The researchers analyze the data from all those studies and then draw their own conclusions.

In their study, Pugh, Kearns, and Hiebert took multiple meta-analyses and did exactly that — applied their own questions to data that has already been collected.

Because the study was primarily interested in the role of text types on the outcome of reading achievement, it was designed around two questions:

1. To what extent do the authors in the three meta-analyses describe the texts used in reading interventions?
2. Do the findings of reading intervention studies vary based on the type of text used in each study?

The study also considered whether reading interventions affected both researcher-designed measures and standardized assessments. It noted that while interventions may not always lead to significant gains on standardized tests, they could show improvements on other measures.

What Does the New Study Say About Decodable and Non-Decodable Texts?

Question 1: To what extent do the authors in the three meta-analyses describe the texts used in reading interventions?

Unfortunately, while 106 of 120 of the studies in the meta-analyses reported that students read at least one text as part of the intervention, very few provided detailed information about the exact texts used. About half of the studies with texts (52) did not provide enough information about those texts to determine what text type was used, another 23 provided partial information about the texts used, and only 31 provided enough detail to specifically identify the texts used in the study.

This information is important, because it would be impossible to reasonably replicate an intervention — and its results — without knowing exactly which texts were used in the intervention. The best research is replicable; that is, other researchers should be able to repeat the study and get the same results.

The good news is that, while many studies did not specifically identify the text used, overall the 85 studies provided enough information about the text type that, even if the exact text used wasn’t known, the authors could at least identify the text as decodable or non-decodable. Ultimately, there were 34 studies with decodable texts, 41 studies with non-decodable texts, and 8 studies with a mix of decodable and non-decodable texts. Another 2 studies texts described non-decodable texts alongside another text that wasn’t described well enough to be identified as decodable or decodable.

Question 2: Do the findings of reading intervention studies vary based on the type of text used in each study?

Once the authors were able to categorize the studies by text type (decodable, non-decodable, or both), they could start analyzing the outcomes associated with each text type.

The authors found a lack of significant differences between the intervention outcomes of either the decodable or non-decodable groups. Additionally, both groups had similar effect sizes. The authors suggested three possible reasons for the outcome:

1. All beginning texts are relatively simplistic and have a degree of decodability. As decodable and non-controlled texts become more complex, the less difference between their level of decodability — making them more similar.
2. Because the percentage of decodable words used in a decodable reader is not standardized, educators may have differing views on what makes a text decodable based on the percentage of decodable words.
3. Various levels of teacher training could be disproportionately affecting the outcomes.

However, the authors did note that interventions that utilized both decodable and non-controlled texts resulted in the highest effect sizes on both foundational skills measures and comprehension measures. These results indicate that there may be possible benefits to using more than one kind of instructional text for reading intervention.

One last finding should be noted: The authors found that some studies using no texts during intervention showed higher effect sizes than those using either decodable or non-controlled texts. This unexpected result suggests the potential effectiveness of non-text-based interventions, particularly for students with limited foundational skills. However, the authors indicated that further replication and study are needed to confirm these findings.

Conclusion: Put the Research into Action in Your Classroom

While the authors of this study stress the need for additional research, the tentative finding is that multiple text types used in unison could be beneficial in reading interventions for struggling readers.

With the research in mind, decodable readers and non-controlled texts can have a place in beginning reading intervention. It is crucial that educators consider their instructional purpose when selecting texts for students to read — no matter whether the texts are for Tier 1 reading instruction or reading intervention — and consider the possibility that a combination of text types might prove to be the most beneficial.

This blog is part of the Science of Reading Research Recap series. Click here to read other blogs in this series.

References

• Cheatham, J. P., & Allor, J. H. (2012). The influence of decodability in early reading text on reading achievement: A review of the evidence. Reading & Writing, 25(9), 2223–2246.
• Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayan- thi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427.
• Hiebert, E. H., Kearns, D. M., & Pugh, A. (2023). Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(4), 710–732.
• Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., Salas, R., Patterson, E., & Pennington, J. (2001). Text leveling and “little books” in first-grade reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(3), 507–528.
• Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Sci- entific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–85.
• Mesmer, H. A. E. (2005). Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(1), 61–86.
• Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612– 624.
• Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576.