Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007b). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(34), 1-7.
Reviewed: August 2010
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast ForWord®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4-5;
|
34.90 |
30.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Language |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4-5;
|
31.10 |
26.80 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study took place in East Elementary and Maple Ridge Elementary in the South Madison Community School Corporation of Pendleton, Indiana.
Two schools that used Fast ForWord® during the spring of 2007 selected students in grades 2 to 5 for the study based on their scores on the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment. To form a comparison group, school personnel individually matched—by grade level and fall and winter scores from the MAP Reading subtest—80 students in the Fast ForWord® group to 80 students not using Fast ForWord®. The study sample included 78 treatment and 78 comparison students. The analysis sample for this review included students in grades 4 and 5: 35 students in the Fast ForWord® group and 35 students in the comparison group.
The intervention groups used Fast ForWord® Language and Fast ForWord® Language to Reading products. The South Madison Community School Corporation chose to use the 50-minute Fast ForWord® protocols, which called for students to use the product for 50 minutes a day, five days per week, for 6 to 10 weeks. The study reported students’ outcomes after three months of program implementation.
The comparison group received the standard district reading curriculum.
The outcomes on this study are students’ reading and language scores on the MAP assessment, which was administered both before and after the intervention was used for the study. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendices A2.3–A2.4.
Educators were trained in current and established neuroscience findings on how phonemic awareness and the acoustic properties of speech impact development of language and reading skills, information on the efficacy of the products, methods for assessing potential candidates for participation, the selection of appropriate measures for testing and evaluation, effective implementation techniques, approaches for using Progress Tracker reports to monitor student performance, and techniques for measuring the gains students have achieved after they have finished using Fast ForWord® products.
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