Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004a). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(8), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ohio Proficiency Test: Reading test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
210.60 |
205.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in four elementary schools in the Springfield City School District in Ohio.
Fourth-grade students who did not pass the fall 2002 Ohio Proficiency Test from four Title I designated schools were eligible to participate in the study. Each elementary school established its own method of identifying treatment and comparison group students for the study. The comparison group was formed by selecting 50 students with test scores from both fall 2002 and spring 2003 who had no exposure to Fast ForWord® products. The intervention and comparison groups were shown to be equivalent on the Ohio Reading Proficiency Test pretest scores. In all, 41 students who used the Fast ForWord® products and 50 students in the comparison group were included in the analysis sample.
The study used Fast ForWord® Language, Fast ForWord® Language to Reading, and Fast ForWord® to Reading 3 products. The Fast ForWord® Language protocol called for students to use the product for 100 minutes a day, five days a week, for four to eight weeks. The Fast ForWord® Language to Reading and Fast ForWord® to Reading 3 protocols called for use of the product for 90 minutes a day, five days a week, for four to eight weeks. Students included in the treatment group were required to have used Fast ForWord® products for 20 or more days. Schools used different implementation models, with some schools having students use the products in the back of the classroom, and other schools sending students to computer labs that served between 7 and 24 students. The study reported students’ outcomes after one semester of program implementation.
The study did not describe the comparison condition. Presumably, the comparison group received the regular school curriculum.
The Ohio Reading Proficiency Test (a statewide assessment) was administered in the year of the study, before and after the intervention. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.3.
At each participating school, educators were trained in current and established neuroscience findings on how phonemic awareness and the acoustic properties of speech affect development of language and reading skills, information on the efficacy of the products, methods for assessment of 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