The Research Behind the I Can Read System
The I Can Read System has been developed through years of educational research into how children learn to read. Our structured literacy approach is designed to help children build strong reading skills by introducing concepts in a logical sequence, allowing each new skill to build on the last.
This page provides an overview of the educational principles behind our programme, along with research findings and performance data that support the effectiveness of the I Can Read System.
Why Families Choose I Can Read
Research-based synthetic phonics programme
Structured literacy pathway
Proven assessment and progress tracking
Strong foundations for reading success
University-qualified teachers
Language-rich learning environment
Development of confident communication skills
Well designed and efficient operations system
Evidence-based teaching methods
Internationally recognised literacy programme
A Structured Approach to Learning to Read
The I Can Read System was developed by educational psychologists following years of research into how children learn to read.
Rather than asking children to memorise words, the programme teaches them how letters and combinations of letters represent sounds. By learning this structured process, children develop the confidence to decode unfamiliar words and become independent readers.
The programme is built on three key principles:
Structured
Skills are introduced in a logical sequence, helping children build confidence as they master each new concept.
Cumulative
Each lesson builds on previous learning, allowing children to strengthen and retain their literacy skills over time.
Hierarchical
Children progress from simple letter-sound relationships to more advanced reading patterns as their skills develop.
I Can Read Research Reports
The I Can Read System has an impressive empirical track record and growing reputation we are very proud of. This section summarises the results of two controlled studies to measure the effectiveness of the unique I Can Read System.
PILOT STUDY 2000
Our 2000 study took place in Singapore, and was supervised by the Singapore Ministry of Education. In this study, a group of subjects were matched and separated into 2 groups. Both groups were pre-tested to make sure that the groups were academically aligned and confirm that one group was not ahead of the other.
The pre-test measure included the Singapore Word Reading Test (SWRT), a sample word list, a sample passage, 3 additional lists of words containing what we call regularity sight words and a list of what we call pseudo words (regular phonetically, but without meaning).
In the table below, the pre-test observations indicate that the two groups score similarly and there is no significant difference between them.
After 7 weeks, both groups were retested.
During this period, Group 1 (the Control Group) continued to receive their normal remediation classes, while Group 2 received an intervention based on the I Can Read methodology.
The Breakdown of post-test measures on the table above shows that both groups started out with similar scores (a Reading Age of 64 months and 66 months, respectively).
In the post-study follow up, we can see the following:
In the Sample Word List measure, Group 1 students made 35 errors and Group 2 students made .03 errors.
In the Sample Passage measure, Group 1 students made 31.6 errors, and Group 2 students made 0 errors.
In the Regular Word List measure, Group 1 students made 9.1 errors and Group 2 students made 7.75 errors.
In the Sight Word List measure, Group 1 students made 11.6 errors and Group 2 students made 8.75 errors.
And in the Pseudo Word List measure, Group 1 students made 17.4 errors and Group 2 students made 3.75 errors.
The graph above left shows the Reading Age (in months) of both groups of students, before and after the 7 week study period. The graphs above middle and right show the post-test comparisons for the two separate tests. The SWRT (Singapore Word Reading Test) post-test measures show that the Control Group demonstrated a reading age of 84 months, while the ICR Group demonstrated a reading age of 93 months.
An independent post-test measure was also undertaken using the NARA (Neale Analysis of Reading Ability) assessment.In this test, the Control Group demonstrated a reading age of 73 months and the ICR Group demonstrated a reading age of 94 months: an exceptional 21 month improvement of the ICR Group compared to the Control Group.
Additional Studies 2003-2005 in two schools
A number of additional studies were undertaken in two schools between 2003 and 2005 for students of six years.
The graphs below illustrate the before and after effects of the ICR System. These graphs show the reduction of errors made in the reading of sight words and regular words post-study. Error rates documented prior to students commencing the
I Can Read programme are shown in green and error rates documented after students completed the I Can Read programme are shown in orange.
