References

Meet WWC evidence standards with reservations

Beattie, K. K. (2000). The effects of intensive computer-based language intervention on language functioning and reading achievement in language-impaired adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08A), 194–3116.

Additional source:
Given, B. K., Wasserman, J. D., Chari, S. A., Beattie, K., & Eden, G. F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain & Language, 106(2), 83–97.

Campbell, J. P. (2000). A comparison of computerized and traditional instruction in the area of elementary reading (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03A), 77–952.

Gallagher, E. M. (1996). Utilization of an ILS to increase reading comprehension (integrated learning systems, CAI) (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(05A), 79–1591.

Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Aeby, V. G., Powell, J. V., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. (2000). Effects of SuccessMaker computerized curriculum on the behavior of disruptive students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(4), 335–347. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Brush, T. A. (1998). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Computer Curriculum Corporation’s (CCC) Foundations and Exploreware software on students in grades one through five. Unpublished manuscript. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Domenech, D. (2002). Project Excel interim evaluation report, year 2. Fairfax County Public Schools. Salt Lake City, UT: Waterford Institute. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Donnelly, L. F. (2004). Year two results: Evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of SuccessMaker during 2002–2003. Charleston, SC: Charleston County School District, Division of Student Learning Services, Division of Student Assessment, Program Evaluation and Data Management. The study is ineligible for review because it only includes outcomes that are overaligned with the intervention or measured in a way that is inconsistent with the protocol.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). SuccessMaker. Denver, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Hargrave, S. (2003). Can SuccessMaker be used as a predictor of proficiency testing achievement? Unpublished master’s thesis, Franciscan University of Steubenville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hauswirth, K. (2006). Using comprehensive digital learning systems. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(3), 32–33. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. Baker, & H. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Final report. Arlington, VA: SRI International. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Levitt, J. L. (2000). An interim evaluation of Operation Safety Net: A five-year project. Miami-Dade, FL: Office of Evaluation and Research, Miami-Dade County. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

McWhirt, R., Mentavlos, M., Rose-Baele, J. S., & Donnelly, L. (2003). Evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of SuccessMaker. Charleston, SC: Charleston County School District. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Metis Associates. (1999). Community school district six [New York City schools] integrated technology reading support project: Third year evaluation report. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Miller, B. S. W. (1999). Opinions of teachers regarding the effects of educational technology in the elementary classroom. Greeneville, TN: Tusculum College. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Miller, L., DeJean, J., & Miller, R. (2000). The literacy curriculum and use of an integrated learning system. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 123–135. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Mills, S. C., & Ragan, T. R. (1998). An implementation model for integrated learning systems. National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), St. Louis, MO. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Oakley, G. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency (and comprehension) through the creation of talking books. Reading Online, 6(7). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Parr, J. M. (1997). Computer assisted learning with an integrated learning system: Another front for raising literacy and numeracy amongst secondary students? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 32(1), 37–51. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Pearson Education Technologies. (2002). SuccessMaker evidence of effectiveness: Selected evaluation summaries. Scottsdale, AZ: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Perez, K. J. (1998). Predictors of achievement in math and reading by elementary ESOL and non-ESOL students using a computer-based integrated learning system (Doctoral dissertation, Barry University School of Education, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07A), 106–2354. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Powell, J. V., Aeby, J., Victor, G., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction. Computers & Education, 40(2), 183–191. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Presland, A., & Wishart, J. (2004). Secondary school pupils’ motivations to use an integrated learning system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 663–668. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Rhine, C. (2005). Beyond fluency to meaning: Using SuccessMaker to build comprehension skills in English language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University– San Marcos. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Simon, C., & Tingey, B. (2001). Seminole county public schools relationship study for 2000–2001. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Slavin, R., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Stanley, W. A. (2001). Computer validity: An evaluation of CCC SuccessMaker. Unpublished master’s thesis, North Dakota State University. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Tingey, B., & Simon, C. (2001). Relationship study for SuccessMaker levels and SAT-9 in Hueneme elementary district, school year 2000–2001, with growth analysis 2000–2001. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Tingey, B., & Thrall, A. (2000). Duval county public schools evaluation report for 1999–2000. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Tingey, B., & Thrall, A. (2002). High stakes management. Multimedia Schools, 9(2), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Underwood, J. D. M. (2000). A comparison of two types of computer support for reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 136–148. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Waxman, H. C., Lin, M., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Wheeler, J. M. (2007). The impact of SuccessMaker on the FCAT reading scores of level-1 and level-2 sixth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of West Florida. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Winters, J. L. (2000). Perceptions of middle school students concerning their language and reading abilities under different instructional interventions. (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02A), 163–569. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Wood, D., Underwood, J., & Avis, P. (1999). Integrated learning systems in the classroom. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 91–108. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

For more information about specific studies and WWC calculations, please see the WWC SuccessMaker^® Technical Appendices.