The DOI matches its Crossref record.
What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction
Abstract
The new edition of this classic research review offers a broad and balanced perspective of the latest theory, research, and practice to provide a solid foundation for the important work of teaching students to read.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3 · Cited by 1,124
Source Evaluation, Comprehension, and Learning in Internet Science Inquiry Tasks
Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209333183 · Cited by 419
Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition
Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9172-z · Cited by 261
The impact of computer use at home on students' Internet skills
Kuhlemeier, H., & Hemker, B. (2007) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.004 · Cited by 231
Kim, J. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654313483906 · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Venue
- International Reading Association eBooks
- Publisher
- International Reading Association
- Published
- 2011-04-20
- DOI
- 10.1598/0829
- OpenAlex
- W1583406525
- Cited by
- 1,090
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 91.59
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1598/0829
- The paper
- What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. (2011). International Reading Association eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1598/0829
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
