Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., & Siceloff, E. R. (2010). Charlottesville, VA: Magnolia Consulting.
Reviewed: June 2016
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 Accelerated Reader.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Reading Test |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 1–3;
|
426.13 |
396.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 13% | |
| White | 66% |
| Hispanic | 11% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 89% |
This study took place in three Catholic private schools in a large city in the North Central region of the United States.
The full study sample, which included 344 first, second, third, and fourth-grade students in 19 classrooms, was approximately evenly split between female and male students (52% vs. 48%, respectively). The majority of study participants (66%) were White, 13% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Hispanic. None of the students were classified as English learners, less than 2% were receiving special education, and less than 3% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Students in the intervention group used Accelerated Reader™ over the course of 1 school year. Teachers reported using the intervention daily (on average, 4.9 out of 5 days a week) in their classrooms, allowing for 30–45 minutes of independent reading practice per day. During this time, students read books within their reading and interest levels and took Accelerated Reader™ quizzes that tested their understanding of the book. The intervention was used to supplement the standard reading curriculum (Scott Foresman).
Students in the comparison group were taught using a similar set of reading curricula as the intervention group, but without the addition of Accelerated Reader™. Both groups supplemented their core curricula—Scott Foresman—with other materials.
Renaissance Learning, the program developer, provided a training seminar to intervention teachers at the beginning of the school year and conducted training visits to each school throughout the study period.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., Wilkerson, S. B., & Peery, E. (2014). Computer-assisted learning in elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Charlottesville, VA: Magnolia Consulting.
Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., Wilkerson, S. B., & Peery, E. (2015). Computer-assisted learning in elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Computers in the Schools, 32(1), 20–34.
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