Campuzano, Larissa; Dynarski, Mark; Agodini, Roberto; Rall, Kristina (2009). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504657
Reviewed: September 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading test score |
Headsprout Early Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading test score |
Headsprout Early Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Year 2 classrooms only ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place within 3 school districts and across 12 different schools. One school district was considered to be located in an urban fringe area, one in an urban area, and one in a rural area. The average district had 59 schools with roughly 47,723 students.
Teachers in the classrooms averaged 11 years of teaching experience (intervention = 9.56; comparison = 11.51) with just over half of the teachers holding a master's degree (58%; 50% in intervention and 67% in comparison). All teachers in both the intervention and comparison groups were female. Students in these classrooms were an average age of 6.7; all students were in first grade. Forty-eight percent of the students were female (intervention = 48%; comparison = 49%). No other characteristics were reported.
Intervention classrooms used the Headsprout Early Reading program. The Headsprout Early Reading program is supplemental reading program published by Headsprout to help improve student reading skills. Specifically, the program works on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program consists of 80 episodes, which are broken down into 40 episode segments that focus on different topics. The first 40 focus on decoding, segmenting, and blending. The last 40 focus on vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension. Students are able to work through the program at their own pace. Teachers are provided information on student progress and usage through assessment reports. The software is designed to be used in the regular classroom or a computer lab and is recommended to be used for 30 minutes a day at least three times a week.
Comparison condition received business-as-usual.
Prior to implementation intervention classroom teachers received one day of initial training. Training was completed via phone, web, or in-person. Support through implementation was provided by via phone and e-mail. The estimated annual cost, per student, to implement the program was $146. Of that amount 85% was used for license fees and the remaining 15% was used for teacher training and support, technical support, and printed materials and supplies.
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