Can brain research and computers improve literacy? A randomized field trial of the Fast ForWord Language computer-based training program.
Borman, G. D., Benson, J., & Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison. (2006). (WCER working paper no. 2006-5). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
-
examining188Students, grade7
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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®.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Reading Composite score |
Fast ForWord® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
36.99 |
34.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Language Composite score |
Fast ForWord® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
40.52 |
40.14 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Maryland
-
Race Black 66%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven middle schools in the Baltimore City Public School System.
Study sample
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. These students also tended to have below-average outcomes on language skills. A total of 274 of these academically at-risk seventh-grade students took pretests (CTBS/5) in the spring of 2001. Random assignment was conducted separately within each of seven schools. Of the initial intervention and comparison students, listwise deletion of students with missing pretest or posttest data was conducted. Additionally, 13 students (eight from the treatment group and five from the control group) were dropped from the sample because they were determined to be outliers based on a substantial drop from pre- to posttest. In all, 90 students in the Fast ForWord® group and 98 students in the control group were included in the analysis sample (therefore, overall attrition was 31%). Although differential attrition between the treatment and control groups was 8%, the treatment and control groups were shown to be similar to each other at baseline. The groups primarily consisted of African-American (66.3% of both the intervention and comparison groups) and economically disadvantaged students (73.3% of the intervention group and 84.7% of the comparison group received free lunch).
Intervention Group
In addition to their regular reading instruction, students 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 to supplement the regular classroom literacy instruction. Students received the program 100 minutes a day, five days a week, for at least 20 days under the supervision of an Fast ForWord®-trained teacher. The study reported students’ outcomes after two months of program implementation.
Comparison Group
In addition to their regular reading instruction, comparison group students received nonliteracy instruction or participated in special activities and classes not related to literacy, such as art and gym.
Outcome descriptions
The eligible outcomes are standardized (normal curve equivalent) CTBS/5 Terra Nova Language and Reading test scores. These tests were administered both before and after the intervention. For a more detailed description of test outcome measures, see Appendix A2.4.
Support for implementation
Before the start of the program, Scientific Learning provided training sessions for teachers operating the Fast ForWord® programs at the schools. No detailed information about these training sessions was provided by the authors.
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).