|
|
The WWC review of beginning reading addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. 5 DaisyQuest studies addressed outcomes in alphabetics and included outcomes for two constructs within alphabetics—phonological awareness and phonics. All four DaisyQuest studies (Barker & Torgesen, 1995; Foster et al., 1994, Experiment 1: Child-care Facility; Foster et al., 1994, Experiment 2: Kindergarten Classrooms; Mitchell & Fox, 2001) used phonological awareness measures. Barker and Torgesen (1995) also used phonics measures. The findings below present authors' estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and statistical significance of the effects of DaisyQuest on students. Sometimes the two differ, reflecting WWC calculations based on data provided by the authors (see Appendix A3). 6
Alphabetics. The Barker and Torgesen (1995) study findings are based on the performance of DaisyQuest students and comparison students on five measures of phonological awareness and four measures for phonics in each set of comparisons.
When the DaisyQuest group was compared with the alternative reading software group, the study authors found statistically significant effects favoring the DaisyQuest group for three of the five phonological awareness measures. The WWC analysis found that two of five positive effects for phonological awareness (Undersea Challenge and Production Test of Segmenting) were statistically significant. One additional positive effect (Phoneme Elision Test), while not statistically significant, was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. 7 The study authors also found a statistically significant effect favoring the DaisyQuest group for one of the four phonics measures (Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest). The WWC effect size computations found none of the four positive effects for phonics to be statistically significant; but three effects (Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest, Woodcock-Johnson Word Analysis, and Experimental Non-word Reading) were large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
When the DaisyQuest group was compared with the math-oriented software, the study authors found, and the WWC confirmed, statistically significant effects favoring the DaisyQuest group for two of the five phonological awareness measures (Undersea Challenge and Production Test of Segmenting). The other three positive effects (Phoneme Elision Test, Sound Categorization, and Production Test of Blending), while not statistically significant, were large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. The study authors also found a statistically significant effect favoring the DaisyQuest group for one of the four phonics measures (Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest) but this was not confirmed by the WWC. According to WWC calculations, there were three positive effects (Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest, Woodcock-Johnson Word Analysis, and Experimental Non-word Reading) that, while not statistically significant, were large enough to be considered substantively important. The one negative effect (Analog Reading Task) found by the WWC was neither statistically significant nor substantively important according to WWC criteria.
Foster et al. (1994, Experiment 1: Child-care Facility) used two phonological awareness tests (phonological awareness test (b) and the screening test of phonological awareness–experimental version). For both measures, the authors found, and the WWC confirmed, positive, statistically significant effects in favor of the DaisyQuest group.
Foster et al. (1994, Experiment 2: Kindergarten Classrooms) used four phonological awareness tests. The authors found, and the WWC confirmed, positive, statistically significant effects favoring the DaisyQuest group on three measures (Undersea Challenge, Production Test of Segmenting, and Production Test of Blending).
Mitchell and Fox (2001) used the Phonological Awareness Test (a), which included a total test score and four subtests for each of the two comparison groups. Only the total test score was included in the effectiveness rating. 8 In the comparison between the DaisyQuest group and the teacher-delivered phonological awareness group, the authors found no statistical differences on the total test score. According to WWC effect size computations, there was a negative effect—that is, the DaisyQuest group scored lower than the teacher-led group on this measure. Although the effect was not statistically significant, it was large enough to be substantively important by WWC standards. In the comparison of DaisyQuest students and students using the other instructional technology, the study authors found, and the WWC confirmed, statistically significant positive effects on the total test score for the DaisyQuest group.
For alphabetics, three studies were categorized as having positive effects and had strong designs. One study had a strong design and was categorized as having indeterminate effects.
The WWC rates interventions as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings (as calculated by the WWC), the size of the difference between participants in the intervention condition and the comparison condition, and the consistency in findings across studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme). Overall, the WWC found DaisyQuest to have postive effects for alphabetics.
|Institute of Education Sciences
