WWC review of this study

A study between Voyager and control schools in Orange County, Florida 2002-2003.

Hecht, S. A. (2003). Retrieved from Voyager Expanded Learning Web site: http://www.voyagerlearning.com/docs/difference/report_studies/ocps_2002_03.pdf.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    213
     Students
    , grade
    K
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: June 2016

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: August 2007

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

7.2

4.6

Yes

 
 
22
More Outcomes

Letter Sound Knowledge

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

26

23.8

Yes

 
 
15

Letter name knowledge

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

26.2

25.2

No

--

Blending

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

9.9

9.2

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

5.3

4.8

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

29.3

30.6

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

9.4

10.4

No

--

Concepts About Print Test

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

12.8

13.5

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

3.2

3.8

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Stanford Binet: Expressive Vocabulary

Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. unknown

Pretest

Kindergarten;
213 students

14.3

17

Yes

-25
 
 

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 80% Free or reduced price lunch
  • Race
    Black
    80%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Florida

Setting

Four schools in Orange County, Florida.

Study sample

The study included 429 economically disadvantaged Kindergarten students at two intervention and two comparison schools. The initial study design called for analysis of outcomes for intervention and comparison classrooms within schools and across the four schools. However, the study authors did not report findings on the within school comparisons due to poor implementation of the intervention. The analysis sample for the between school comparisons included 213 students. This left 213 students in the between schools study: 101 students in the intervention group and 112 students in the comparison group. Over 80% of students were African-American, and approximately 80% qualified for free or reduced price lunches.

Intervention Group

The Voyager Universal Literacy System® program was used as the core reading program in intervention classrooms for five months. No other information about implementation of the program is given.

Comparison Group

The two schools in the comparison group used their school’s existing curriculum, either Houghton Mifflin or Success for All. No other information about instruction for the comparison group was given.

Outcome descriptions

Hecht (2003) used the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Awareness (CTOPP) Elision, Segmenting, and Blending subtests as well as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) test of Nonsense Word Fluency. Letter Name Knowledge, Letter Sound Knowledge, and Concepts about Print measures were also used. In addition, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) Word Identification and Word Analysis subtests were used as well as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th Edition) Vocabulary subtest. Spelling subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Test were administered, but are beyond the scope of this review. (See Appendix A2.1–2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)

Support for implementation

No information was given about teacher training in this study.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top