Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005b). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(8), 1–4.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
107.90 |
103.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
99.90 |
96.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 35% | |
| White | 63% |
The study took place in a K–5 elementary school in Lancaster, South Carolina.
During the spring of the 2004–05 school year, 50 third-grade students participated in the study. The sample included one entire classroom of students along with randomly selected students from other third-grade classrooms. Twenty-five students were randomly assigned to the Fast ForWord® group, and 25 students were assigned to a comparison group. All 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 2, the focus of this study. Approximately 63% of the students in the study school were Caucasian and 35% were African American. Nearly 36% of students received free or reduced-price lunch.
All students in the Fast ForWord® group used the computer-based Fast ForWord® to Reading 2 product. The Fast ForWord® to Reading 2 protocol called for students to use the product for 48–90 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 4–12 weeks. Students missed the social studies and science portions of the school curriculum during participation in the intervention.
Comparison group students used the social studies and science portions of the school curriculum while the intervention was being used with intervention group students. All students were using SRA/McGraw-Hill’s Open Court Reading for their whole group reading instruction as part of their regular school curriculum.
The Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) were used as both the pretest and the posttest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, 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 to assess student outcomes.
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