Effects of Technology-Mediated Vocabulary Intervention for Third-Grade Students with Reading Difficulties
Fogarty, Melissa; Coyne, Michael D.; Simmons, Leslie E.; Simmons, Deborah C.; Henri, Maria; Kwok, Oi-Man; Ware, Sharon M.; Dalton, Kevin; Williams, Kimberly A.; Wang, Huan (2020). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v13 n2 p271-297. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1254367
-
examining184Students, grade3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Vocabulators – Fogarty et al. (2020))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Qualitative Reading Inventory, 5th ed. (QRI-5): Narrative Retell |
Vocabulators – Fogarty et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.19 |
20.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT-4) reading comprehension subtest |
Vocabulators – Fogarty et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.13 |
85.14 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 4th ed. (GRMT-4): Vocabulary subtest |
Vocabulators – Fogarty et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.55 |
89.94 |
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.
-
26% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
- 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
Connecticut, Texas
-
Race Asian 1% Black 27% Other or unknown 55% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 45% Not Hispanic or Latino 56% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 24 general education 3rd grade classrooms in four Texas schools and three Connecticut schools.
Study sample
Twenty-four teachers agreed to participate in the study. Each teacher nominated up to 12 students in their classroom who could benefit from an intervention aimed at strengthening vocabulary and comprehension. Students were eligible if they scored at or below the 41st percentile on the GMRT-4 and were able to read at least 25 words per minute (Oral Reading Fluency, ORF). Over half of the students (54%) were male, and over one-quarter (27%) were Black and 18% were White. Just under half (45%) were identified as Hispanic, and about one-quarter (26%) were receiving ESOL services. Nearly half (44%) were receiving special education services, and an additional 16% were reported as being eligible for special education services. The 200 eligible students were then randomly assigned to receive Vocabulators instruction (100 students) or typical instruction (100 students).
Intervention Group
The program, Vocabulators-Fogarty et al. (2020), is a computer-based intervention aimed at helping children learn the vocabulary associated with vocabulary and reading comprehension tasks. It is organized into four, 15-lesson parts. Across the curriculum, there are two kinds of lessons: vocabulary lessons and application lessons (in which students apply the new vocabulary in context). The structure and sequence of lessons is: “explicit instruction, cumulative review, strategic integration of vocabulary and concepts across lessons, …opportunities for students to respond, and responsive performance feedback” (p. 10). Each part begins with a pretest, then goes on to vocabulary lessons, quizzes, comprehension application lessons and quizzes, and a posttest. The software uses a range of response formats: thumbs up/down, multiple choice, word sort with drag & drop, matching, filling in the blank, and short answer. Students participated in an average of 29.30 lessons (out of a maximum of 57) that took 17.85 minutes to complete (designed to be 30 minutes long). Students participated between October and May.
Comparison Group
Teachers were asked not use any intervention content or materials with control students, and were asked to maintain their typical instructional practices, which included published core programs, guided reading, and reader's workshop frameworks.
Support for implementation
The researchers held a 3-hour training and overview session prior to the start of the intervention and provided onsite professional development over the course of the intervention through weekly or biweekly visits. Additional support was provided at the start of the intervention to troubleshoot technical difficulties, ensuring that students could log onto the program without teacher support.
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).