Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of targeted interventions and of specific instructional time on reading ability in French children in grade 1

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim is to examine the impact of interventions on fluency and reading comprehension and how the effects of these interventions depend on the time that teachers spend with children with reading difficulties. Two groups were involved: an experimental group (n = 600) trained in code-related skills and a control group (n = 597) that received no intervention. In the Exp group, teachers adapted a specific instructional time for reading (SITR) in the light of children’s difficulties. A significant gain of .23 σ in fluency and a gain of .33 σ in reading comprehension were observed in favor of the Exp group, (a) but there was no gain in numeracy skills (as expected); (b) the amount of SITR is linked to children’s scores in literacy skills; (c) SITR is linked to progress in fluency and reading comprehension. These results argue in favor of differentiated reading instruction for children with difficulties during learning to read.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Code-focused skills refer to those that are necessary for learning grapheme-phoneme relationships, i.e., primarily phonological skills and letter-name knowledge, and which are related to decoding; they are distinguished from meaning-focused skills, i.e., listening comprehension, vocabulary, syntactic knowledge.

  2. In a previous paper, the effect of interventions was analyzed using a matching technique; here, we use another technique, i.e., multilevel analyses which might be more suitable for this study (see below).

  3. It is now well-documented that an effect of age is observed on reading performance (see Introduction). The quarter of birth was considered.

  4. This “negative” time means that some children did not have enough time to learn to read; consequently, in the experimental group classes, the teachers allocated more time to these children (the so-called SITR).

References

  • Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Wanzek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). To wait in Tier 1 or intervene immediately: A randomized experiment examining first grade response to intervention (RTI) in reading. Exceptional Children, 81, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Cañizo, M., Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2015). The role of reading fluency in children’s text comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Cañizo, M., Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2017). Reading prosody development in Spanish children. Reading and Writing, 31, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardoin, S. P., Binder, K. S., Foster, T. E., & Zawoyski, A. M. (2016). Repeated versus wide reading: A randomized control design examining the impact of fluency interventions on underlying reading behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedard, K., & Dhuey, E. (2006). The persistence of early maturity: International evidence of long-run age effects. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1437–1472. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.121.4.1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begeny, J. C., & Silber, J. M. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Ross, S. G., & Mitchell, R. C. (2009). Increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency with small-group interventions: A comparison of repeated reading, listening passage preview, and listening only strategies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(3), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begeny, J. C., Levy, R. A., & Field, S. A. (2018). Using small-group instruction to improve students’ reading fluency: An evaluation of the existing research. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 34(1), 36–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCRR Tech. Rep. No. 1) Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved from http://www.Fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/TechnicalReport1.pdf.

  • Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2015a). A cross-sectional study of fluency and reading comprehension in Spanish primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(272–285), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., Simpson, I. C., González-Trujillo, M. C., & Defior, S. (2015b). Suprasegmental phonology development and reading acquisition: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(51–71), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2017). Effects of fluency training on reading competence in primary school children: The role of prosody. Learning and Instruction, 52, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Vaugh, S., & Tyler, B. (2002a). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386e406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002b). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75, 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00296.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, E. L. (2004a). Beyond the reading wars: The effect of classroom instruction by child interactions on early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(305-336), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, E. L. (2004b). Beyond the reading wars: The effect of classroom instruction by child interactions on early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(305-336), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early years: Algorithm guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315, 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, J., & M. (2016). Individualizing Student Instruction in Reading: Implications for Policy and Practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crone, D., & Whitehurst, G. (1999). Age and schooling effects on emergent literacy and early reading skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.4.604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datar, A. (2006). Does delaying kindergarten entrance give children a head start? Economics of Education Review, 25, 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denham, C., & Lieberman, P. (1980). Time to learn National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong, N., & Maynard, R. A. (2013). PowerUp! : A tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes and sample size requirements for experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(1), 24–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.673143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecalle, J., Gomes, C., Auphan, P., Cros, L., & Magnan, A. (2019). Effects of policy and educational interventions intended to reduce difficulties in literacy skills in Grade 1. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.001.

  • Ecalle, J., Dujardin, E., Gomes, C., Cros, L., & Magnan, A. (2020). Decoding, fluency and reading comprehension: Examining the nature of their relationships in a large-scale study with first graders. Reading & Writing Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1846007.

  • Figlio, D., Holden, K. L., & Umut, O. U. (2018). Do students benefit from longer school days? Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida’s additional hour of literacy instruction. Economics of Education Review, 67, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (1985). Perspectives on instructional time Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(239–256), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 773–787). National Association of School Psychologists.

  • Glazzard, J. (2017). To what extent do frameworks of reading development and the phonics screening check support the assessment of reading development in England? English in Education, 51(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/17548845.2017.11912599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gledhill, J., Ford, T., & Goodman, R. (2002). Does season of birth matter? The relationship between age within the school year (season of birth) and educational difficulties among a representative general population sample of children and adolescents (aged 5-15) in Great Britain. Research in Education, 68, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.68.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godde, E., Bosse, M.-L., & Bailly, G. (2020). A review of reading prosody acquisition and development. Reading & Writing, 33, 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09968-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1999). Multilevel of Statistical Models Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Marquis, J., & Walker, D. (1994). Confirming a performance-based instructional model. School Psychology Review, 23(652–668), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, S., Samuelsson, C., Johansson, E., & Wallmann, J. (2013). How simple is the simple view of reading? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.656279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, S. M., Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2019). Evaluating the effects of repeated reading and continuous reading using a standardized dosage of words read. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F. L., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2013). Birthday effects and preschool attendance. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., Pullen, P. C., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802491208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710050084428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, E. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.493964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. K., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Park, Y. (2017a). A synthesis of interventions for improving oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning disabilities: Preventing school failure. Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1212321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. K., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Park, Y. (2017b). A synthesis of interventions for improving oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1212321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinard, E. M., & Reinherz, H. (2015). Birthdate effects on school performance and adjustment: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(6), 366–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00487.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590930492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(230–251), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer, H. A. E., & Williams, T. O. (2014). Modeling first grade reading development. Reading Psychology, 35(5), 468–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.743494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-999-0027-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(839–853), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(336–354), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. L., Sideridis, G., & Hua, Y. (2012). Initial and over-time effects of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46(2), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910398016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved (12/07/09) from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org

  • O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe, B. V., Slocum, T. A., Burlingame, C., Snyder, K., & Bundock, K. (2012). Comparing results of systematic reviews: Parallel reviews of research on repeated reading. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 333–366. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oshima, T. C., & Domaleski, C. S. (2006). Academic performance gap between summer-birthday and fallbirthday children in grades K-8. Journal of Educational Research, 4, 212–217. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.212-217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.20.2.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 286–319). Routledge.

  • Roberts, G., Good, R., & Corcoran, S. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2005.20.3.304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, E. (2011). The effects of quarter of birth on academic outcomes at the elementary school level. Economics of Education Review, 30, 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Not just speed reading: Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting high-stakes third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, L. S. (2020). Early identification and intervention to prevent reading failure: A response to intervention (RTI) initiative. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37(2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2001). Academic achievement and social behaviors associated with age of entry into kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(01)00075-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252e261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading success. Newark, DE.

  • Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58, 78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(270–291), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24(301-315), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). The role of speech prosody and text reading prosody in children’s reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(521–536), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., & Reutebuch, C. K. (2008). A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 317–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9085-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, L. M., Reed, D. K., & Aloe, A. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of non-repetitive reading fluency interventions for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 42(2), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519855058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zvoch, K. (2019). Investigation of the long-term effect of a summer literacy program on student reading performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lab EMC (EA 3082) - MSH LSE (USR CNRS 2005) – Unversité Lumière Lyon2, Lyon, France

    Jean Ecalle, Annie Magnan & Pauline Auphan

  2. Association Agir pour l’Ecole, Paris, France

    Pauline Auphan, Christophe Gomes & Laurent Cros

  3. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Bruno Suchaut

Authors
  1. Jean Ecalle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annie Magnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pauline Auphan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christophe Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laurent Cros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruno Suchaut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Ecalle.

Additional information

Current themes of research:

Learning to read. Interventions to help children with learning difficulties. Computer-based assessment. Computer-based program helping children in difficulties with word reading and comprehension.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Ecalle, J., Gomes, C., Auphan, P., Cros, L., and Magnan, A. (2019). Effects of policy and educational interventions intended to reduce difficulties in literacy skills in grade 1. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 12-20 doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.001

For the works of the authors see www.ecalle-magnan.fr and www.agirpourlecole.org

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Description of the tasks administered at t1 (at the beginning of grade 1) and at t2 (at the end of grade 1), collectively (Coll) or individually (Ind).

  • Letter knowledge (t1; Coll). Two tasks were proposed: in the letter writing task, the children had to write the letter named by the teacher (max = 15). In the letter sound task, a pseudoword was first named by the teacher and the children then had to circle the first letter (among 7) of the pseudoword (max = 15).

  • Phonological skills (t1; Coll). A phonemic segmentation task was administered: the children had to draw as many circles representing phonemes as they heard in the pseudoword named by the teacher (max = 12).

  • Word reading (t1; Coll). A forced-choice task was proposed: the children had to circle the (orthographically correct) word corresponding to the picture and named by the teacher. For each item, five sequences of letters were proposed (words and pseudowords) (at t1: max = 10; at t2: max = 16).

  • Pseudoword reading (t1; Coll). The same type of task (without picture) was administered (max = 10).

  • Listening comprehension (t1; Coll). The children listened twice to a short narrative (110 words) and then had to answer questions by circling the picture (out four) which they thought was correct (max = 11).

  • Reading comprehension (t2; Ind). The children were asked to read a very short text (47 words) aloud. They were then asked to read questions about the text and to answer the experimenter orally (max = 5).

  • Fluency (t2; Ind). The children had to read a short text (50 words). The experimenter recorded the time taken to read the text as well as the number of errors. Fluency was calculated using the following formula: (50 − Errors) / (Time in seconds * 60).

Appendix 2

The program, together with all the linguistic material and detailed exercises, included four main levels: training phonological skills (1), learning letter sounds (2), decoding (3), and fluency (4). For the first level, various exercises were proposed: word segmentation into syllables, deleting syllables, segmentation of short pseudowords into phonemes, blending phonemes, etc. Once the children had reached a high level of performance in terms of phonological skills, they learned letter-sound correspondences (2nd level) involving the ten high-frequency letters. When they had acquired a sufficient level of skill with the learned letters, they were trained (3rd level) in decoding CV, CVC, CVCV pseudowords. Finally, fluency (4th level) was trained through the repeated reading of short texts during which the children were encouraged to read as quickly and accurately as possible. The teachers were recommended to dedicate 30 min a day in small groups (between 10 and 12 children) for the children with average or high levels of literacy skills, whereas for the lowest performing children 1 h (2*30 min a day) was advised (4–6 children per group). The teachers were supported by educational aids only during group teaching. This protocol was constructed by the Association Agir pour l'Ecole (APE; Act for School), a platform that promotes experimentation in the use of new evidence-based methods of learning to read. Compliance with the protocol was monitored by experimenters from APE, who performed weekly follow-up.

Before the training, the children were assessed on certain classical pre-reading skills (phonology, letter knowledge, etc.). Depending on their initial level, they were assigned to a group ranging from group 1 (good level) to group 5 (poor level). The amount of training they received therefore depended on their initial level: the lower this level was, the more training they received.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., Auphan, P. et al. Effects of targeted interventions and of specific instructional time on reading ability in French children in grade 1. Eur J Psychol Educ 37, 605–625 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00566-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00566-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation