Borman, Geoffrey D.; Benson, James G.; Overman, Laura (2009). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v31 n1 p82-106. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ869816
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Terra Nova Total Reading subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
April/June |
Grade 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 89% | |
| White | 10% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
The study took place in four urban schools in the Baltimore City Public School System.
Students were eligible for the study if they scored below national norms on the total reading outcome for the district-administered Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Fifth Edition (CTBS/5) during the spring of 2000. A total of 141 academically at-risk second-grade students (71 intervention and 70 comparison) took pretests (CTBS/5) in the spring of 2001. Random assignment was conducted separately within each school. The analysis sample of students with both pretest and posttest information included 62 intervention students and 56 comparison students. The groups consisted primarily of African-American (92% of the intervention students and 94% of the comparison students) and economically disadvantaged students (75% of students in both groups received free lunch). There were slightly more male participants (52% of the intervention students and 56% of the comparison students) than female participants.
In addition to their regular reading instruction, students who were randomly assigned to the intervention condition used the Fast ForWord® Language software program in school resource rooms. The resource rooms served as a targeted pullout program offered during the regular school day supplementing the regular classroom literacy instruction. Students received the program 100 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for at least 20 days between April and June 2001, under the supervision of a Fast ForWord®-trained teacher.
In addition to their regular reading instruction, comparison group students received nonliteracy instruction or participated in special activities and classes, such as art and gym.
The total reading portion of the CTBS/5 Terra Nova was used as both the pretest (Form B in April 2001) and an outcome measure (Form A in June 2001). For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Before the start of the program, Scientific Learning provided training sessions for teachers operating the Fast ForWord® programs at the schools.
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.
Borman, G. D., & Benson, J. Can brain research and computers improve literacy? A randomized field trial of the Fast ForWord® Language computer-based training program. Unpublished report.
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Benson, James G.; Overman, Laura. (2009). A Randomized Field Trial of the Fast ForWord Language Computer-Based Training Program. [Fast ForWord vs. business as usual]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v31 n1 p82-106.
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