Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings From Two Student Cohorts. NCEE 2009-4041
Campuzano, Larissa; Dynarski, Mark; Agodini, Roberto; Rall, Kristina (2009). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504657
-
examining40Students, grade4
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Academy of READING®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading test score |
Academy of READING® vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading test score |
Academy of READING® vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Year 2 classrooms only;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place within 4 school districts and across 15 different schools. Two of the school districts were considered to be located in urban fringe areas and the other two in urban areas. The average district had 95 schools with roughly 64,342 students.
Study sample
Teachers in the classrooms averaged 9 years of teaching experience (intervention = 7.04; comparison = 11.87) with under half of the teachers holding a master's degree (32%; 27% in intervention and 37% in comparison). The teachers were mostly female with 73% in the intervention and 89% female teachers in the comparison group. Students in these classrooms were an average age of 9.7; all students were in grade 4. Fifty percent of the students were female (intervention = 48%; comparison = 52%). No other characteristics were reported.
Intervention Group
Intervention classrooms implemented the Academy of Reading program. The Academy of Reading program is a set of exercises to improve reading skills published by Autoskill Inc. The program focuses on phonemic awareness and sound-symbol association, phonics and decoding, fluency and comprehension, and reading proficiency. Students are able to work through each exercise at their own pace. Teachers are provided with assessment reports on student usage and progress through the exercises. The program is designed to be used in a computer lab for 25 minutes a day three or more days a week.
Comparison Group
Comparison students received business-as-usual.
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation intervention classroom teachers received one full day of training on how to use the product. Teachers also participated in another training that occurred four to six weeks later as a follow-up. The program publisher provided support during implementation via phone, e-mail, and webinars. The estimated annual cost, per student, to implement the program was $217. Of that amount 51% was used for license fees and the remaining 49% was used for teacher training and support, technical support, and printed materials and supplies.
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).