Mitchell, Mary Jane; Fox, Barbara J. (2001). Reading Research and Instruction, v40 n4 p315-32 Sum 2001. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ636885
Reviewed: February 2024
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (Robertson & Salter) - Total |
Daisy Quest and Daisy’s Castle vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
73.20 |
61.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 9% | |
| White | 91% |
The study was conducted in an elementary school located in a suburban middle class neighborhood located in a southeastern state. Children in each treatment group received a practice session and then received 5 hours of instruction in 20-minute sessions that were spread across the 4 week study duration.
The study presents sample characteristics for the full sample of students in one of three experimental conditions. Students were in kindergarten (n = 36) and first grade (n = 36). Of the 72 children, 91% were white and 9% were African American. Approximately 56% of the sample was male and the mean age was 76.11 months. Students were identified as at-risk based on teacher observations and scored among the lowest of their grade based on pretest values on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III) and the Literacy Initiative for Everyone (LIFE).
Children in each treatment group received a practice session and then received 5 hours of instruction in 20-minute sessions that were spread across the 4 week study duration. No teacher-instruction was provided in the computer-based conditions. Computer-administered phonological instruction: Two software programs were used - DaisyQuest and Daisy's Castle. DaisyQuest emphasized rhyme identification and the identification of beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words while Daisy's Castle focused on individual phonemes and blending. In both programs, instruction is presented for each skill in a tutorial format. The child also receives feedback and demonstrates mastery by responding to a series of yes/no multiple choice questions. Three skill levels are associated with each activity with advanced levels associated with a shorter response time.
The comparison was a technology control group that utilized one drawing program (Kid Works 2) and four mathematics programs (Math Rabbit, Troggle Trouble Math, Number Maze, and New Math Blasters Plus). The purpose of this condition was to control for the novelty of using computers and to spend the same amount of teacher interaction as the other conditions.
No training was discussed.
Reviewed: June 2016
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.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 DaisyQuest.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (a) |
DaisyQuest vs. Other software programs |
Posttest |
Kindergartners and first graders;
|
73.20 |
61.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (a) |
DaisyQuest vs. Teacher-delivered phonological awareness instruction |
Posttest |
Kindergartners and first graders;
|
73.20 |
78.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Six kindergarten and six first-grade classrooms in a middle-class, suburban elementary school in a southeastern state.
Participants were 72 students (36 kindergarteners and 36 first graders). To determine eligibility, the district-administered Literacy Initiative for Everyone (LIFE, 1996) inventory was used. Kindergarteners who did not meet district criteria on three of the five kindergarten LIFE subtests and first graders who were below grade level expectations on five of the seven first-grade LIFE subtests were then given the PPVT-III. Seventy-two randomly selected students who met the LIFE requirement and received a standard score of 85 or higher on the PPVT-III formed the sample eligible for this study. These students were then randomly assigned to one of three conditions: DaisyQuest (intervention), teacher-administered phonological awareness training (comparison 1); or math and drawing software programs (comparison 2). Twenty-four students were assigned to each study group, half kindergarteners and half first graders. Three students total were lost to attrition, for an analysis sample of 69.
Intervention students used the DaisyQuest software over a four-week period, involving 15, 20-minute sessions (five hours instruction total). Each child was assigned a specific computer in the school’s computer lab to use for the length of the study and was guided by an experimenter, who helped them with their earphones and any computer gliches. Students used both components of the DaisyQuest software.
In comparison 1, students also had 15, 20-minute sessions over a four-week period during which teachers guided them through oral activities focusing on rhyming, articulating single syllable words, identifying sounds in isolation, and matching phonemes. Instructional materials for this condition were selected from the Phonological Awareness Kit (Robertson & Salter, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001) and the Phonological Awareness Intermediate Kit (Robertson & Salter, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001). In comparison 2, students interacted with computers for the same time and duration as the intervention group. Instead of using DaisyQuest, participants used one drawing program, Kid Works 2 (Davidson, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001), and four math software programs, Math Rabbit (The Learning Company, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001), Troggle Trouble Math (MECC, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001), Number Maze (Great Wave Software, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001), and New Math Blasters Plus (Davidson, as cited in Mitchell & Fox, 2001). Like the intervention group, they were guided by an experimenter while using these programs in a computer lab.
The Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (a) was administered pre- and posttest. Overall PAT (a) scores, as well as scores on its Rhyming, Isolation, Segmentation, and Blending subtests were reported. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Teachers did not deliver the intervention or comparison 2, so no information was provided. For comparison 1, the study reported that teachers followed procedures from the two kits (see above).
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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide