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: February 2017
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 |
LeapTrack Assessment & Instruction System vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading test score |
LeapTrack Assessment & Instruction System 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 4 school districts and across 19 different schools. Two of the school districts were considered to be located in urban fringe areas and the other two in urban areas. The average district had 87 schools with roughly 38,050 students.
Teachers in the classrooms averaged 11 years of teaching experience (intervention = 11.07; comparison = 11.58) with just under half of the teachers holding a master's degree (35%; 31% in intervention and 38% in comparison). The teachers were mostly female with 86% in the intervention and 88% female teachers in the comparison group. Students in these classrooms were an average age of 9.72; all students were in 4th grade. Fifty-one percent of the students were female (intervention = 49%; comparison = 52%). No other characteristics were reported.
Intervention classrooms implemented the LeapTrack program. LeapTrack is a supplemental reading program published by LeapFrog SchoolHouse. The program is designed to help improve phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. The program works by providing an assessment the teacher administers to students to identify the areas a student needs to develop. The program then provides a "Learning Path" for the students based on their assessment. These paths include a list of skill cards and books the student works on to complete to help learn the skill. Students work on these activities at their own pace using either a LeapPad, skill cards, and/or LeapFrog SchoolHouse books. The program recommends that it should be used in the classroom for at least 15 minutes a day for three to five days a week.
Comparison students received business-as-usual.
Prior to implementation intervention classroom teachers received one full day of training and up to four days of follow-up training. Support during the year was provided via either phone or through a web site. The estimated annual cost, per student, to implement the program was $154. Of that amount 47% was used for license fees and the remaining 53% 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