Introducing an iPad App into Literacy Instruction for Struggling Readers: Teacher Perceptions and Student Outcomes
D'Agostino, Jerome V.; Rodgers, Emily; Harmey, Sinéad; Brownfield, Katherine (2016). Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, v16 n4 p522-548. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1118174
-
examining50Students, grade1
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for LetterWorks)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
65.60 |
54.12 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Letter Identification subtest |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.52 |
50.88 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Clay's Observation Survey - Text Reading Level |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.00 |
7.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Clay's Observation Survey: Concepts about Print |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.52 |
17.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Slosson Oral Reading Test– Revised |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.12 |
21.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words subtest |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
34.00 |
30.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Writing Vocabulary subtest |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.40 |
31.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ohio Word Test |
LetterWorks vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.68 |
13.88 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 52% Other or unknown 19% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 92% No FRPL 8%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven schools in an urban area of a Midwestern state in the United States.
Study sample
There were seven teachers and 25 students randomly assigned to each condition, and none of the teachers or students left the study. Characteristics of the study sample were not provided in the manuscript.
Intervention Group
The intervention group used LetterWorks, which is an iPad app that functioned in a similar fashion to the magnetic letter boards used in Reading Recovery. The letters in the app appeared three-dimensional and appeared in various colors (and with various sounds) as they were manipulated. All students in both the intervention and comparison groups participated in Reading Recovery; the intervention group received LetterWorks in addition to Reading Recovery. Reading recovery lessons were 30 minutes long, and included a letter work, where the teacher directs the students' attention to the visual features of print. This portion of the lesson, where LetterWorks was implemented, is designed to help increase the speed that students identify and discriminate between letters.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received Reading Recovery and used plastic magnetic letters instead of iPads to assist their development of letter knowledge.
Support for implementation
Researchers met with the teachers to review the study and introduce the app to the treatment teachers. Teachers were directed not to share the iPad with the comparison group teachers. Comparison group teachers received iPads once the study concluded.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).