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
-
examining29Students, grade1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for PLATO Focus)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading test score |
PLATO Focus vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading test score |
PLATO Focus 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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place within 3 school districts and across 8 different schools. Two of the school districts were considered to be located in urban areas and was in an urban area. The average district had 13 schools with roughly 6,966 students.
Study sample
Teachers in the classrooms averaged 17 years of teaching experience (intervention = 16.02; comparison = 17.17) with just over half of the teachers holding a master's degree (55%; 47% in intervention and 64% in comparison). The teachers in both the intervention and comparison group were all female. Students in these classrooms were an average age of 6.6; all students were in first grade. Fifty-two percent of the students were female (intervention = 53%; comparison = 52%). No other characteristics were reported.
Intervention Group
Intervention classrooms use the PLATO Focus reading curriculum during the school year. PLATO Focus is a complete reading curriculum that is designed to develop skills in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Activities include instructor led activities, computer-based activities, and print-based activities. Students spend varying amounts of time on each activity with the maximum amount of time on an activity being between 30 to 45 minutes. Teachers can choose the order and difficulty level for the computer-based activities. Teachers receive progress reports for each student using the curriculum. The curriculum can be implemented in either the regular classroom or a computer lab. A PLATO trained reading specialist should monitor students in a computer lab.
Comparison Group
Comparison students received business-as-usual.
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation intervention classroom teachers received three to six days of training. They received at least one day during the school year and at least one in-class consultation during the year. Ongoing support was provided via phone and through a web site. The estimated annual cost, per student, to implement the program was $351. Of that amount 27% was used for license fees and the remaining 73% 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).