Research on Reading Mastery

Reading Mastery

Mixed Evidence of Relative Effectiveness:

<< back to the TOC Summary: Reading Mastery has been the subject of a number of intervention studies. So far I have reviewed 6. Of these, ~67% had at least one measure where Reading Mastery had a statistically significant positive result. However, two studies (33%) had at least one measure where the program performed worse than controls, and in one of these studies RA actually had a negative impact, with post-test scores lower than pre-test scores.

I am currently reviewing more studies, so stay tuned.

Reading Mastery Research (formerly known as DISTAR)

Reading Mastery is a Direct Instruction approach. Direct Instruction approaches (note the capitalization) are also known as the “DI” or “Engelmann Approaches.” These are explicit, highly scripted phonics programs. They include Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, DISTAR, Reading Mastery, Corrective Reading, Read Well, PHAB/DI, PHAST, Empower Reading TM, Phonics for Reading, and Early Interventions in Reading. Of the intervention studies I have reviewed thus far, the programs are of middling length for a phonics program. The interventions ranged from 35 to 151 hours, spanning 1-2 years. Below is a summary of the research on Reading Mastery:

O'Connor et al. 1993 (see alt pdf) compared DI Reading Mastery to the phonics program Superkids. There were many complications that occurred over the course of the study, resulting in variable hours of intervention (though an average of 90 hours), and ultimately very small sample sizes. The study found no statistically significant differences in reading between the two interventions, with the exception that of students who performed above average, DI students tended to be further above the average. DI students also had more gains in spelling, with a statistically significant and moderate effect size. Gunn et al. 2000 did a study with 256 students. After about 130 hours of intervention, they compared the progress of struggling students who received intervention via Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading with those who did not. Intervention students had significantly higher gains in word reading, nonsense word reading, vocabulary, and passage comprehension, and a near-significant gain in ORF. Effect sizes were not calculated. Butler 2001 carried out a study of 34 students over the course of 5 months. Unfortunately, the study found that students receiving Reading Mastery performed worse than those receiving basal reader instruction, and in fact the intervention appeared to have a negative impact. Those receiving Reading Mastery unfortunately declined across all reading areas tested (nonsense word reading, word identification, vocabulary, and passage comprehension). The Reading Mastery group did see gains on standardized reading test scores, but the control group had higher scores. The differences between the intervention and control group were statistically significant for overall reading scores, passage comprehension, and on standardized reading test scores, with Reading Mastery having a negative impact compared to the control group. Jones 2002 studied the impact of Reading Mastery on phonemic awareness with 36 kindergarten students who were at risk for reading difficulties. After 20 hours of intervention, there was a significant difference in the Phonemic Awareness measures between the groups. Those who received Reading Mastery had significantly higher PA scores (effect size moderate). McCollum-Rogers 2004 analyzed data from several schools to compare Direct Instruction (Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading, depending on age of student) to the reading program Success for All, as well as a basal reader control group. After 3 years of intervention, students who received intervention via DI programs had the lowest reading test scores (as measured by the WRAT assessment). The effect size was small, but statistically significant. Kamps et al. 2008 examined the impact of several different reading programs as compared to a balanced literacy "Guided Reading" approach. Several of the intervention programs were Direct Instruction (DI) programs: Reading Mastery, Early Intervention in Reading, and Read Well. The other programs included Open Court and Programmed Reading. After 120 - 151 hours of intervention over the course of 2 years, all of the interventions performed better than the Guided Reading control on measures of Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency. Significance level was not provided, but in terms of impact, the DI interventions had a medium effect size. The difference between DI and the "Guided Reading" approach was statistically significant in terms of Nonsense Word Reading, Word Identification, and Passage Reading. Effect sizes were not calculated. The researchers concluded that structured, explicit phonics instruction was what moved the needle, as opposed to a specific program.

The meta-analysis linked here found that research on Reading Mastery has been a bit mixed when compared to other phonics programs. The IEC What Works Clearinghouse has reviewed a few studies on Reading Mastery for teens and rated the program as "Potentially Positive" for fluency. It also reviewed one study of Reading Mastery for ELLs and again rated it as "Potentially Positive" The older, DISTAR program was rated by the WWC via one study and was found to have "No discernable effect"

My Takeaway? The evidence on the effectiveness of Reading Mastery is somewhat mixed. In two studies it did have some negative results, which is not a great sign. However, it also has more studies with statistically statistically significant positive results than many others that I have reviewed. The program can also be delivered more rapidly than most and is scripted, which can be a bonus for some. I am still reviewing some literature, so I'll withhold final judgement until then, but at the moment, this would not be the first intervention I'd reach for.

Similar Programs: "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" "100 Easy Lessons" was derived from DISTAR, the same parent program that Reading Mastery derived from. Thus far, I have only found three research studies of the "100 Easy Lessons" program that included control groups (Kay 2003, Fjortfort et al 2014, McConnell & Kubina 2016). The results were positive, but the sample sizes were so small (in one case, 2 students), and the study designs and control groups were often very different from the rest of the research on this page, so I have opted not to do a full review at this time. Hopefully I will be able to find more studies soon.

Reading Research:

Butler, M. T. (2001). Comparison of the effects of direct instruction and basal instruction on the reading achievement of first-grade students identified as students with reading difficulties. The University of Alabama. Google Scholar | ProQuest

Gunn, B. K. (1996). An investigation of three approaches to teaching phonological awareness to first-grade students and the effects on word recognition. University of Oregon. Google Scholar

Jones, C. D. (2002). The effects of direct instruction programs on the phonemic awareness abilities of kindergarten students. University of Virginia. Google Scholar

Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of small-group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten: Two-year results for secondary-and tertiary-level interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 101-114. Google Scholar

McCollum-Rogers, S. A. (2004). Comparing Direct Instruction and Success for All with a basal reading program in relation to student achievement. The University of Southern Mississippi. Google Scholar | ProQuest

O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Cole, K. N., & Mills, P. E. (1993). Two approaches to reading instruction with children with disabilities: Does program design make a difference? Exceptional Children, 59(4), 312-323. Google Scholar | ERIC pdf

Return to the Know Your Options Table of Contents

This Research Summary is a work in progress.

Leave me a comment if you know of other studies that I could include!