No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Rating:
-
Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Earobics®.
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest
|
Earobics® vs.
Business as usual
|
Posttest
|
Kindergarten;
30 students
|
17.30
|
15.10
|
No
|
--
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest
|
Earobics® vs.
Business as usual
|
Posttest
|
Grade 1;
35 students
|
37.20
|
34.60
|
No
|
--
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest
|
Earobics® vs.
Business as usual
|
Posttest
|
Kindergarten;
31 students
|
26.70
|
26.60
|
No
|
--
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest
|
Earobics® vs.
Business as usual
|
Posttest
|
Grade 1;
35 students
|
38.60
|
48.10
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 45%
Male: 55%
-
- 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
Alaska
-
Race
Black |
|
8% |
Native American |
|
17% |
Other or unknown |
|
22% |
White |
|
36% |
Setting
One Title 1 elementary school in Anchorage, Alaska, participated in the study. The intervention was administered in the computer lab or in the student’s regular classroom.
Study sample
At a school with 140 kindergarten and first-grade students (70 at each grade level), the researcher blocked the students by gender and grade, and then randomly selected a sample of 80 students (40 in group 1, 40 in group 2). Among this sample, 14 were discontinued during the study (10 in group 1 and four in group 2), leaving a final analysis sample of 66 students. Students in the study participated in two 10-week intervention phases. During the first phase, group 1 received the intervention and group 2 served as the comparison. In the second phase, group 2 received the intervention and group 1 was the comparison. (The WWC focuses on phase 1 only, because by phase 2, the comparison group had just received the intervention.)
Intervention Group
The intervention group received computerized instruction in phonological awareness with Earobics® Step 1 software 20 minutes a day, three days a week, for a total of 10 weeks. Earobics® Step 1 uses a game format designed to assist students in developing specific phonological awareness and auditory-processing skills. The software consists of six multileveled interactive games with adaptive technology. This was in addition to whole-group direct instruction that the students received together with comparison students.
Comparison Group
While intervention students were engaged with the intervention software, comparison students received an additional 20 minutes of peer or individual classroom activities in a variety of formats dependent on the individual teacher’s program.
Outcome descriptions
Students were tested before and after the intervention using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 6th edition and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Support for implementation
Training was provided in two phases: implementation and data collection. Seven classroom teachers and one Title 1 paraprofessional received training, which was provided by specialists from the developer. Other staff members were trained and available to provide technical support, and additional support was available online and by telephone.