Computer administered instruction in phonological awareness: Evaluation of the DaisyQuest program.
Foster, K. C., Erickson, G. C., Foster, D. F., Brinkman, D., & Torgesen, J. K. (1994). Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27 (2), 126–137. (Experiment 2: Kindergarten Classrooms).
-
examining69Students, gradeK
DaisyQuest Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- 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 DaisyQuest.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Production Testing of Segmentation |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Second semester kindergarteners;
|
11.80 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Undersea Challenge |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Second semester kindergarteners;
|
53.30 |
46.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Production Testing of Blending |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Second semester kindergarteners;
|
13.40 |
10.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Screening Test of Phonological Awareness (STOPA) |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Second semester kindergarteners;
|
26.20 |
25.30 |
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.
-
Suburban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a suburban elementary school.
Study sample
Participants were 70 second-semester kindergarten students aged five to seven years (average six years old) from four classrooms. Originally, nearly 97 students (all the students) from four kindergarten classrooms in a suburban elementary school were tested with the PPVT-R. Children with the highest and lowest scores were removed to reduce heterogeneity of the sample with regard to verbal ability. The 70 remaining children were matched in pairs according to their scores on the PPVT-R, with one of each pair being randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group. One child from the experimental group changed schools and did not complete the study, for an analysis sample of 69.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received 16 daily, 20-minute DaisyQuest verbal training sessions in groups of four. Sessions took place at computers located in the hallway outside the child’s classroom under the guidance of an experimenter, who assisted students with their headphones and any computer glitches. A few of the children were absent from several sessions, hence training time varied from 4.0 to 5.3 hours, with an average of 4.9 hours of training. This version of DaisyQuest contained seven instructional activities. Students varied in the number of activities completed and speed with which they finished the activities.
Comparison Group
The control group remained in their regular classroom, receiving their routine kindergarten instruction.
Outcome descriptions
A series of tests were given at both pre- and posttesting: Screening Test of Phonological Awareness (STOPA), Undersea Challenge, Production Test of Blending, and Production Test of Segmenting. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
No information was given about teacher training, because teachers did not deliver the intervention.
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).