An Evaluation of the Lightning Squad Computer-Assisted Small Group Tutoring Program on the Reading Achievement of Disadvantaged Students in Grades 1-3. Technical Report
Ross, Steven M.; Laurenzano, Mary; Madden, Nancy A. (2017). Center for Research and Reform in Education. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618502
-
examining150Students, grades1-3
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Tutoring with the Lightning Squad)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Tutoring with the Lightning Squad vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.05 |
0.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Tutoring with the Lightning Squad vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.19 |
-0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Tutoring with the Lightning Squad vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.19 |
-0.04 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Minnesota, Virginia
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
Six elementary schools participated in the evaluation of Lightning Squad Tutoring reading intervention program, including four schools near St. Paul, Minnesota and two schools in a rural area of Virginia. The intervention was conducted by tutors in first, second, and third grade classrooms.
Study sample
All students participating in the intervention were in grades 1-3 and reading below the 30th percentile for their grade (i.e., 'struggling readers'). Four of the elementary schools in the study were located in Virginia (three rural, one suburban) while two elementary schools were located in Minnesota (one suburb, one small city). In the Virginia schools, the majority (over 75%) of students were white, followed by 2-6% multi-racial. In the Minnesota schools, one school was majority (50.6%) Hispanic followed by one-third (33.6%) white, while the other school was 41.3% white followed by 20.3% Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received the Lightning Squad tutoring intervention between the months of December 2016 and January 2017.The intervention was a computer-assisted small group-tutoring program (supervised by a paraprofessional tutor) specifically designed to increase reading levels. The software was intended for consistent use over several months, with a system of promoting students to more difficult levels as they progressed through the program. Students were required to complete a minimum of 25 sessions to be considered part of the treatment group (with a max of 51 tutoring sessions in the sample). Post-testing occurred between the months of March and May, 2017. Assessments were administered one-on-one by independently hired assessors unaware of student assignment to treatment or control groups.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received business as usual in the fall and received the Lightning Squad intervention in the spring.
Support for implementation
Students in the control group were assigned to receive the intervention in the spring and thus still had access to the treatment. Assessments were conducted by independent assessors who were blind to students' treatment or control group status to eliminate potential bias. The software was able to track student login activity and progress, and the reliability of these data was verified during testing of the software. Calls and emails to the Help Desk could be made during business hours, which were logged to collect reports of technological problems experienced or content errors. Tutors were interviewed and surveyed to understand their experience with the software. The program is less expensive than other one-to-one tutoring models because it is conducted in small groups supervised by a tutor.
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).