Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004b). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(21), 1-6.
Reviewed: March 2013
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®.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-8;
|
30.39 |
25.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 16 schools in the Philadelphia School District in Pennsylvania.
Three groups of students in grades 2 to 8 (mainly fourth and fifth graders) participated in Fast ForWord® supplemental instruction during the 2003–04 school year. Groups 1 and 2 comprised the treatment group for this study. Group 1 used Fast ForWord® between September and November, and group 2 used Fast ForWord® between December and February. Group 3 served as the comparison group (and used Fast ForWord® between March and May). The participating schools determined which students were placed in the three groups. Students were assessed in September and March. In all, 256 students in the Fast ForWord® treatment group and 37 students in the comparison group were included in the analysis sample. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes by grade and intervention group (1 versus 2) can be found in Appendix A4.
Students participating in the Fast ForWord® group used a variety of Fast ForWord® products. All students used either the Fast ForWord® Language or Fast ForWord® Middle and High School product for an average of 25 days. In addition, about half of the students used Fast ForWord® Language to Reading products (which are part of the Fast ForWord® Language series), and one-tenth of the students used Fast ForWord® Reading 3 products (which are part of the Fast ForWord® Reading series). Fast ForWord® was used as a supplement to the regular reading curriculum. The study reported students’ outcomes after three months of program implementation.
Before March 2004, comparison group students received their regular reading curriculum.
The eligible outcome on this study is the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Test, which was administered both before and after the intervention. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.3.
Teachers were trained in current and established findings on the neuroscience of how phonemic awareness and acoustic properties of speech impact development of language and reading skills; information on the efficacy of the products; methods for assessment of potential product participants; the selection of appropriate standardized language measures for testing and evaluation; effective implementation techniques; instruction on the product, Progress Tracker, and the reports generated by the product that allow educators and coaches to monitor student performance; and techniques for measuring the progress and gains students achieve after they have finished using the product.
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