Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(17), 1–6.
Reviewed: March 2013
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast ForWord®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2 and 3;
|
41.90 |
33.20 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 21% | |
| White | 56% |
| Hispanic | 22% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 78% |
The study was conducted in an urban pre-K to fifth grade elementary school in Fern Park, Florida.
During the spring of the 2004–05 school year, 15 second-grade students and 23 third-grade students participated in the study. Using random assignment stratified by grade, academic skill level, and previous Fast ForWord® use, 20 students were assigned to the Fast ForWord® group and 20 students to a comparison group. Two students assigned to the comparison group later dropped out of the study, so the analysis was conducted with a sample of 18 students in the comparison group. Sixteen study participants had used one or more of the Fast ForWord® products before participating in the study; however, none had previously used Fast ForWord® to Reading 1 or 2, the focus of this study. At the study school, approximately 56% of the students were Caucasian, 22% were Hispanic, and 21% were African American. Nearly two-thirds of students in the study were receiving free or reduced-price lunch, compared with 57% of students at the school.
All students in the Fast ForWord® group used the Fast ForWord® to Reading 1 or 2 products. The Fast ForWord® to Reading 1 and 2 protocols called for students to use the product for 48 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 4–8 weeks. Students were pulled out of class to use the program in a computer lab, where a certified teacher and a paraprofessional oriented the students to the product and made sure they understood the tasks. Once the students started the product, no assistance was given.
Students in the comparison group took part in the regular school curriculum.
The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test was used as both the pretest and the posttest. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
The intervention teachers were given background information on how phonemic awareness and the acoustic properties of speech can impact development of language and reading skills. They were then trained to implement the program, including approaches for using Progress Tracker, the program’s reporting system, to monitor student performance. Teachers were also trained to assess potential participants for the study and assess student outcomes.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Seminole County School District, FL: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scilearn.com
Reviewed: August 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast ForWord®.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube