Outcomes report: Los Angeles Unified School District, California.
Cognitive Concepts, Inc. (2003). . Retrieved from http://www.cogcon.com/research/proven/LAUSD.pdf.
-
examining74Students, gradesK-3
Earobics® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2009
- 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 Earobics®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Blending into Words subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
17.31 |
14.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Segmenting into sounds subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
45.31 |
35.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Rhyming words subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
7.16 |
4.26 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Sound of Letters subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
27.80 |
26.17 |
No |
-- | |
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Letter naming subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
57.49 |
57.26 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Words per minute 1 |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
39.21 |
35.49 |
No |
-- | |
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Words per minute 3 |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
36.70 |
33.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Oral Reading Assessment Level- Jimerson (ORAL-J): Words per minute 2 |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
K-Grade 3;
|
34.11 |
31.63 |
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.
-
82% English language learners -
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
California
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one elementary school located Los Angeles, California.
Study sample
Nineteen teachers identified students in kindergarten through third grade with reading difficulties. More than 80% of students were English language learners. The study author administered pretests (ORAL-J and Test of Memory and Learning [TOMAL]) to students to divide them into two similar groups. The groups were then randomly assigned to be either the intervention or comparison groups. Each group originally had 43 students, but there was some attrition due to poor attendance. In the analysis sample, 39 students were in the treatment group and 35 students were in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group were given directions on how to use Earobics® software. They received instruction with Earobics® for 30 minutes a day, five days a week from October through December. In addition, the intervention group received its regular whole class reading instruction with the Open Court Reading curriculum.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison classes received the regular whole class reading instruction with the Open Court Reading curriculum during the language arts period.
Outcome descriptions
For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered eight subtests of the ORAL-J: Early Literacy Achievement test: Blending into Words, Segmenting into Sounds, Rhyming Words, Letter Naming, and Sound of Letters subtests, as well as three administrations of the Words per Minute subtest.3 The TOMAL was also used in the study, but it was not included in this review because it was outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Support for implementation
No information on teacher training is provided. The Earobics® group worked in a computer lab, with minimal teacher instruction.
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).