An evaluation of a computer-based phonological awareness training program: Effects on phonological awareness, reading and spelling.
Valliath, S. C. (2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04A), 152-1291.
-
examining30Students, grade1
Phonological Awareness Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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 Phonological Awareness Training.
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Earobics® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2009
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- 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 Earobics®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Sound Matching subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
103.63 |
95.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
104.07 |
100.87 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
104.00 |
97.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Nonwords subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
111.00 |
105.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
103.33 |
101.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Earobics® vs. Knowledge Adventure's Jump Start Math for First Graders |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
105.66 |
103.33 |
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.
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Illinois
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three public elementary schools from a high-achieving school district of a northwest suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
Study sample
Ten teachers identified three children with the lowest reading ability within their first-grade classrooms. Before pretesting, all 30 students received a score of at least 80 on the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence -3. Then the study author administered a pretest (the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Identification subtest) to students to divide them into two similar groups. All children came from English-speaking monolingual homes; none received any special education or speech and language services. The sample consisted of 16 boys and 14 girls, ages 6.5 to 7.5. In the analysis sample, 15 students were in the intervention group and 15 students were in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group spent 20 minutes each day playing one of the six Earobics® games. Earobics® delivered phonological awareness training in the auditory mode and provided minimal sound-to-print training. The children played individually and were provided headsets. They started at the lowest skill level for each game and progressed at their own pace. The games were rotated systematically on a daily basis during the 10-week training program. The average number of days attended by the students in the intervention group was 46.47 of a possible 50 days.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received comparable amounts of daily exposure (approximately 20 minutes) to math training software, Knowledge Adventure’s Jump Start Math for First Graders. The software has no linguistic training component and consists of eight math games appropriate for children in the first grade. The average number of days attended by the students in the comparison group was 45.8 of a possible 50 days.
Outcome descriptions
For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered four subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words, Blending Non-Words, Elision, and Sound Matching subtests and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification and Word Attack subtests. The CTOPP Memory for Digits subtest and the Spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement test were also used in the study, but they have not been included in this review because they are 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
The experimenter trained the computer lab technicians in each of the three schools on how to use the software. Detailed instructions, attendance sheets, and appropriate rotations of the Earobics® games were discussed. No other information on teacher training is provided.
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).