1. The FCRR Reading for Understanding Network: Challenges and Unanswered Questions (Pre-K – Grade 5) This research was supported by a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education (R305F100027). Views expressed are those of the authors and have not been reviewed or approved by the granting agency.

2. Christopher J. Lonigan Carol M. Connor Beth M. Phillips Young Suk-Kim Ralph Radach Christopher Schatschneider Richard K. Wagner Michael Kaschak Stephanie AlOtaiba Kenn Apel Jeanine Clancy Elizabeth Crowe Karli Willis Jonathan Klepper Felesa Oliver Investigators: Other Key Personnel:

3. Approach Two-pronged approach to understanding and improving reading comprehension: – Basic Science Studies – Intervention Studies

4. Basic Science Studies Main project was longitudinal study of correlates and predictors of reading comprehension outcomes for children originally in preschool through grade 5 to identify potential “levers” to enhance reading comprehension. About 1,800 children in first year. Children in preschool, first grade, third grade, and fifth grade followed longitudinally each subsequent year. Multiple measures used for each hypothesized construct (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, memory).

5. Basic Science Studies Oral Language: receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, depth of vocabulary, understanding of syntax, production of syntax, listening comprehension Background Knowledge Decoding: word-decoding accuracy, nonword-decoding accuracy, word-decoding fluency Reading Comprehension NonVerbal Cognitive Abilities Phonological Awareness Working Memory Memory Span

6. Intervention Studies A variety of “design studies” to develop and conduct preliminary evaluation of intervention activities to promote children’s skills related to reading comprehension (e.g., specific language dimensions). Initial Comparative Efficacy Study – Evaluate all interventions developed via design studies when compared to each other and typical educational practice in relevant grades for interventions. Within-grade RCT with ~3,700 children in preschool – fourth grade.

7. Intervention Studies Second Comparative Efficacy Study – Evaluate most promising interventions from CE-I as combined interventions. Within-grade RCT with ~1,450 Pre-K and K Students; 430 4 th grade students. LIM-CALI Study – Evaluate intervention that used “language in motion” (LIM) intervention and integrate it with a text-focus. Within-grade RCT of ~1,000 second-grade students.

8. Basic Science: Nature of Reading Skills Study of dimensionality of reading skills For Kindergarten to second grade, both decoding and reading comprehension measures were best described by a single Reading factor. For third through fifth grade, decoding and reading comprehension measures were best described by moderately to highly correlated Decoding and Reading Comprehension factors.

9. Basic Science: Nature of Language Skills Study of dimensionality of language skills Across all grades (preschool - fifth grade), measures of vocabulary, syntax, and listening comprehension were best described by two highly correlated Vocabulary and Syntax factors.

10. Basic Science: Predictors of Reading Skills Contributors to Reading (younger children), Decoding, and Reading Comprehension (older children). For younger children (1st - 2nd grade), language, nonverbal cognitive ability, and phonological awareness accounted for 76 percent of the variance in reading skills.

11. Longitudinal Structural Model of Predictors of Reading First & Second Grade Children Model CFI =.93; RMSEA =.04

12. Basic Science: Predictors of Reading Skills For older children (3rd - 5th grade), language, working memory, and phonological awareness explained 65 percent of the variation among children’s decoding skills. Decoding and language skill, explained between 94 and 96 percent of the variation among children’s reading comprehension skills. For both older and younger children, reading skills are very stable across time.

13. Longitudinal Structural Model of Predictors of Decoding and Reading Comprehension for Third – Fifth Grade Children Model CFI =.91; RMSEA =.05

14. Longitudinal Structural Model of Predictors of Decoding and Reading Comprehension for Third – Fifth Grade Children Model CFI =.91; RMSEA =.05

15. Longitudinal Structural Model of Predictors of Decoding and Reading Comprehension for Third – Fifth Grade Children Model CFI =.91; RMSEA =.05

16. Predicting Reading Comprehension Over Time: Third through Fifth Grade Children RCOMP T1 RCOMP T2 RCOMP T3 Gates T1 (R 2 =.56) WJ-PC T1 (R 2 =.60) TSREC T1 (R 2 =.56) Gates T2 (R 2 =.59) WJ-PC T2 (R 2 =.66) TSREC T2 (R 2 =.59) Gates T3 (R 2 =.57) WJ-PC T3 (R 2 =.61) TSREC T3 (R 2 =.57) 1.0

17. Basic Science: Implications Fewer language dimensions than originally thought to leverage for improving reading comprehension. Developmental unfolding of reading skills across elementary school. Reading comprehension as a distinctly measurable construct does not emerge until around third grade. A few constructs predicted most of the variability among children’s reading skills. Reading skills are very (or completely) stable from early in elementary school.

18. Intervention: Comparative Efficacy I Rationale Results of basic science studies called into question the component linguistic process model (i.e., specific linguistic processes independently contribute to reading comprehension). Interventions that produced broad or deep impacts on outcomes would be strong candidates for improving the reading for understanding of children.

19. Intervention: Comparative Efficacy I Participants Screened 8,089 Pre-K through 4 th grade from Higher poverty schools. 4097 qualified for the study with vocabulary < 48 th percentile. 3702 were matched within school and randomly assigned to BAU or interventions within their grade, using a balanced incomplete random blocks design (not all interventions were represented at every school).

20. Intervention: Comparative Efficacy I Component Interventions Evaluated Dialogic Reading (DR; Pre-K only) Language in Motion (LIM) Comprehension through Oral retell, Monitoring, & Providing Awareness of Story Structure (COMPASS) Morphological Awareness Training (MAT) Enacted Reading Comprehension (ERC) Text Structure Knowledge (TEXTS)

21. Results Summary: Comparative Efficacy I INTERVENTIONS Grade DRCOMPASSLIMMATERCTEXTS PreKEOWPVT CASL S Inc Detect~ TNL CASL S Not Tested K None EOWPVT~ CASL S None Not Tested None 1 Not Tested Inc DetectNone CASL S~ (neg) Not Tested None 2 Not Tested None CASL S CELF EV None Not Tested TOSREC (neg) 3 Not Tested Inc DetectNone Not Tested EOWPVT Not Tested 4 WJ-AK EOWPVT~ OWLS WJ-AK Note. All p <.05 except where indicated by ~

22. Conclusions: Comparative Efficacy I No intervention impacted children’s reading comprehension skills—even taking into account the effect of decoding skills. Generally, grade-specific and narrow impacts of interventions. Results suggest that typical pattern of common variation in linguistic processes may be the result of environments that support development across linguistic areas. Therefore, successful intervention may require targeting multiple linguistic processes simultaneously.

23. Intervention: Comparative Efficacy II The most effective interventions from CE-I Study were combined or modified for specific grades Participants Grade LevelScreenedQualified% QualifiedRandomized Pre-kindergarten1,30480262740 Kindergarten1,6731,01160870 Fourth Grade 86849057468 Totals3,8452,303602,078

24. Intervention: Comparative Efficacy II SCHOOL Pre- Kindergarten COMPASS + DR LIM + DR LIM + COMPASS Control Group Kindergarten COMPASS + DR LIM + DR LIM + COMPASS Control Group Fourth Grade TEXTS Standard TEXTS Adaptive Control Group

25. Results Summary: Comparative Efficacy II Preschool Kindergarten Outcome DR/LIM- BAU DR/COMP -BAU LIM/COM -BAU DR/LIM- BAU DR/COMP -BAU LIM/COM -BAU DR Proximal 1.03*** 1.13***.14.79*** 1.03***.04 LIM Proximal.51**.13.36***.35***.02.27*** COMPASS Proximal -.20.24+.11.14.46***.38*** One-Word.23*.27**.01.16*.24***.09 CASL-S.33**.16.40***.09.13.27** CELF--SS.07.22+.14 -.02.08.09 TNL 1.01.22+.04.16+.05.12 TNL 3.08.46***.31**.14.15.16 WJ-Oral Comp.12.17.03.06.16+.11 Values in table are effect sizes

26. Results Summary: Comparative Efficacy II Outcome BAU vs TEXTS Adaptive BAU vs TEXTS Standard TEXTS Adaptive vs TEXTS Standard One-Word.04.03.01 CASL S.02-.04.06 CASL G.15+.07.08 CASL A.04-.07.11 WJ Oral Comp.04.12-.09 PROXIMAL.12.10.02 GATES-.13-.08-.05 WJ PC.08-.13.21* WJ Academic Knowledge.37***.28**.07 CE-II: Fourth Grade Outcomes Values in table are effect sizes

27. Conclusions: Comparative Efficacy II Large effects on proximal measures. Broader impacts of interventions in preschool and kindergarten grades on standardized measures of vocabulary and syntax. Suggests need to provide interventions that target multiple components of language to have broad impacts on children’s skills. Effect of TEXTs intervention was narrow, and effects for a standardized version were larger than those for an adaptive version.

28. Overall Summary & Conclusions

29. There is a substantial degree of longitudinal continuity in children’s reading skills. – Children’s skills increase. – But, growth in skills constant across children. This stability is present early in the elementary school period. Common environments and other factors likely work to “equate” skills across potentially distinct domains, resulting in fewer measurably distinct dimensions that could be leveraged to improve reading outcomes.

30. Overall Summary & Conclusions Effective instructional practices on precursor skills increase children’s skills and may shift children’s growth in reading-related and reading skills. Such instruction, however, likely needs to be broad and occur early in the development of children’s skills. This instruction also likely needs to be sustained to overcome the developmental forces that drive levels of potentially different skills together.