A Review of the Evidence on Tier 1 Instruction for Readers With Dyslexia

Abstract

In this article, I provide an examination of research evidence concerning the effects of classroom instruction (Tier 1) for students with dyslexia and other reading problems. I discuss the suitability and limitations of different types of research evidence that may be used to determine how best to support the learning of these students in the classroom (e.g., studies of the effects of classroom instruction on average reading achievement, studies of special interventions for students with reading problems). I then examine research on the impact on learning of amount of classroom instruction, the curriculum or content of classroom instruction, and the quality of classroom instruction. Because the preponderance of research has focused on what needs to be taught to students to improve their reading achievement, in that portion of the review, I focus on the results of 32 meta‐analyses rather than individual studies. These meta‐analyses addressed a wide range of topics, including phonemic awareness, decoding, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, writing, and various aspects of language and text structure. Finally, I provide a best estimate of beneficial approaches to classroom instruction for students with dyslexia and identify gaps and limitations in this evidentiary base.

Dyslexia Seen Through the Eyes of Teachers: An Exploratory Survey

“…The overall findings showed that teachers' and school leaders' perspectives on dyslexia, understandings of dyslexia, beliefs about dyslexia and teaching self-efficacy for dyslexia were generally positive. Their strong agreement with the survey's definition of dyslexia, that dyslexia occurs among normally developing students who experience persistent decoding difficulties, was encouraging because this definition aligns with research (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, 1986;Hoover & Gough, 1990;Shanahan, 2021). Their strong agreement that there were students with dyslexia in classrooms was also a positive sign because it aligns with research (for example, Adlof & Hogan, 2018;Vellutino et al, 2004) and because it showed that teachers and leaders in this survey were aware of such students in classrooms.…”

Scoping the field of literacy research: how might a range of research be valuable to primary teachers?

“…The first set of studies includes those that focus on the teaching and learning of literacy skills. The range of topics included here is indicated by a series of literature reviews produced during the period of this review that focus on: dyslexia (Shanahan, 2021); the effects of text structure instruction on comprehension (Bogaerds-Hazenberg et al, 2021); interventions for struggling readers (Neitzel et al, 2020); the role of play in literacy skills (Rand and Morrow, 2020); the effects of systematic synthetic phonics instruction (Ehri, 2020;Torgerson et al, 2019); the evidence base for reading instruction (Peng and Goodrich, 2020), and guidance for spelling teaching (Chen et al, 2021). Many of the articles included here align to the orientation to literacy that underpins the curriculum for English in England (within which reading and writing are primarily addressed -DFE, 2014), although not all of the topics represented here have been given equal attention in policy or practice.…”