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
-
examining46Students, grade1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Waterford Early Reading Program)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading test score |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading test score |
Waterford Early Reading Program 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: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place within 3 school districts and across 13 different schools. Two of the school districts were considered to be located in urban fringe areas and one in an urban area. The average district had 68 schools with roughly 49,450 students.
Study sample
Teachers in the classrooms averaged 11 years of teaching experience (intervention = 11.51; comparison = 10.62) with just under half of the teachers holding a master's degree (35%; 36% in intervention and 33% in comparison). All teachers in the intervention and comparison groups were female. Students in these classrooms were an average age of 6.6; all students were in first grade. Forty-eight percent of the students were female (intervention = 48%; comparison = 48%). No other characteristics were reported.
Intervention Group
Intervention classrooms used the Waterford Early Reading program. The Waterford Early Reading program is a supplemental reading program with three levels. Level 1 is typically for kindergartners, Level 1 for first graders, and level 3 for second graders. Age and grade appropriate skills are included in each level. Thus, for level 2 (first grade) topics covered include letter sounds, word recognition, and comprehension. Phonological awareness can also be covered in level 2 if requested. Students work at their own pace and teachers receive progress reports on students. Students have books that are sent home on a weekly basis with directions for parents. The program can be used in the regular classroom or a computer lab and is recommended to be used between 17 to 30 minutes, depending on the level of instruction, three times a week.
Comparison Group
Comparison students received business-as-usual.
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation intervention classroom teachers received two days of onsite training. Support through implementation was provided via phone, e-mail, and the web site. The estimated annual cost, per student, to implement the program was $223. Of that amount 54% was used for license fees and the remaining 46% 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).