Kloos, Heidi; Sliemers, Stephanie; Cartwright, Macey; Mano, Quintino; Stage, Scott (2019). Frontiers in Education v4 n67. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596283
Reviewed: February 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach phonics assessment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample grades 2 and 4: MVRC vs. instruction as usual;
|
6.21 |
5.97 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach phonics assessment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Grade 2: MVRC vs. alternative technology;
|
0.94 |
5.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach phonics assessment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 2: MVRC vs. Instruction as usual;
|
0.94 |
5.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach phonics assessment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4: MVRC vs. Instruction as usual;
|
0.53 |
6.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach reading fluency assesment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample grades 2 and 4: MVRC vs. instruction as usual;
|
3.30 |
2.67 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach reading fluency assesment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4: MVRC vs. Instruction as usual;
|
0.88 |
3.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach reading fluency assesment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 2: MVRC vs. Instruction as usual;
|
0.76 |
1.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mindplay Virtual Reading Coach reading fluency assesment |
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Grade 2: MVRC vs. alternative technology;
|
0.76 |
1.33 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in two Midwestern school districts. One school district implemented the study in six grade 2 classrooms in one public elementary school. This district serves suburban middle- and upper-middle class families. The other school district implemented the study in nine grade 4 classrooms in one public elementary school. This district serves suburban upper-middle class families.
The study authors indicated that none of the students in the study had an identified learning disability but did not otherwise provide information on the study sample.
MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach (MVRC) is an educational software aimed at improving reading fluency. Lessons are delivered by an online reading coach and followed by practice and immediate feedback. The program adapts to the individual needs of the students and covers phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, grammar, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Students move through the lessons based on their progress. Teachers were asked to allow their students to work on MVRC for 30 minutes per day for 9 weeks, although students had access to the program for the entire year.
MVRC is contrasted with both alternative computer-based reading programs and business-as-usual instruction. The alternative computer-based reading programs were selected by the individual schools, were different in each school, and were not described in the study. Teachers in the alternative online reading program group were asked to allow their students to work on the program for 30 minutes per day for 9 weeks. Teachers in the business-as-usual group conducted normal instruction during the time MVRC was implemented.
Information on support for implementation was not provided by the study, except to note that the MVRC program was provided for the duration of the school year to students in the intervention group.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube