ArticlePsychological science2021
The Dramatic Impact of Explicit Instruction on Learning to Read in a New Writing System.
Article in Psychological science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phonological decoding and orthographic learning in poor and typical adult readers.Research square · 2026Article
- Statistical learning in spelling and reading.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Cerebello-Cerebral Pathways Contribute to Written Word Production.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- White matter associations with spelling performance.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- Dyslexia, the Amsterdam Way.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Curve of Learning With and Without Instructions.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of short educational videos on the cortical networks for mathematics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Neural synchronization and intervention in pre-readers who later on develop dyslexia.The European journal of neuroscience · 2023Article
- Knowledge of Statistics or Statistical Learning? Readers Prioritize the Statistics of their Native Language Over the Learning of Local Regularities.Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is profound and long-standing debate over the role of explicit instruction in reading acquisition. In this research, we investigated the impact of teaching regularities in the writing system explicitly rather than relying on learners to discover these regularities through text experience alone. Over 10 days, 48 adults learned to read novel words printed in two artificial writing systems. One group learned spelling-to-sound and spelling-to-meaning regularities solely through experience with the novel words, whereas the other group received a brief session of explicit instruction on these regularities before training commenced. Results showed that virtually all participants who received instruction performed at ceiling on tests that probed generalization of underlying regularities. In contrast, despite up to 18 hr of training on the novel words, less than 25% of discovery learners performed on par with those who received instruction. These findings illustrate the dramatic impact of teaching method on outcomes during reading acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.