Frechtling, J. A., Zhang, X., & Silverstein, G. (2006). Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 75–95. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ733704
Reviewed: March 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Voyager Universal Literacy System vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
39.39 |
35.05 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Letter-Word Identification |
Voyager Universal Literacy System vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
37.15 |
31.54 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 97% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% |
The study was conducted in 8 schools in 2 inner-city districts. The program, which is a comprehensive reading program, was delivered to the entire class, and included small- and full-group activities.
Students: Participants included kindergarten students. About half were male (50.0% and 48.0%), most were Black (98.0% and 96.0%), most received free or reduced price lunch (84.0% and 93.0%), and a minority were classified as LEP (0.58% and 0.92%), or having an IEP (4.41% and 1.50%) for the treatment and control groups, respectively. The mean attendance rate was 93.35 and 96.20 for treatment and comparison groups, respectively. Classrooms: 12 classrooms participated in the treatment group and 12 classrooms participated in the comparison condition. The mean class size was 19.00 and 18.42 in the treatment and comparison conditions, respectively. Teachers: On average, teachers had 7.25 and 5.87 years of experience and a mean attendance rate of 96.83 and 97.80 in the treatment and comparison groups, respectively. Schools: Four pairs of schools in two inner-city districts participated in the study.
The Voyager Universal Literacy System is a comprehensive reading program for students in K-3. The Voyager program provides students with the skills and knowledge necessary to become proficient readers and focuses on the following items: 1. Core reading curriculum that emphasizes phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary 2. Progress monitoring system that measures reading progress and identifies struggling readers 3. Struggling-reader intervention that includes additional time 4. Professional development for teachers, principals, and specialists 5. Home-study curriculum 6. Technology enhancement activities The Voyager program is highly structured and detailed in scope. In the kindergarten intervention, the curriculum is divided into daily instructional blocks that include 2 hours of Friendship Circle, Reading Stations, and Writing Connection. The following components are addressed as part of the intervention: 1. Phonemic awareness is addressed within each lesson (students learn to segment and blend, map to print, and time to practice and demonstrate learning 2. Phonics instruction that incorporates letter combinations, affixes, and strategies for decoding multisyllabic words 3. Fluency instruction including naming letters, naming sounds, and reading words quickly and accurately 4. Vocabulary including important concept words, useful words, and words that may be confusing for young readers 5. Listening and reading comprehension 6. Variability in group sizes/grouping
The comparison schools did not receive the Voyager program and instead received business-as-usual, which the authors report included activities that addressed phonemic awareness, phonics, and sight words. They also report that comparison teachers read to students, integrated literacy skills in other lessons, and provided students with opportunities to read on their own, all of which also is part of the Voyager curriculum. Most comparison teachers also used small groups for instruction, though not all used student performance in assigning students to groups.
A 2-day training is provided for district and campus coaches. A 3-day training is provided for teachers, which focuses on managing the classroom, administering the program, grouping students, delivering the curriculum, and providing the Voyager reading instruction. Ongoing training sessions expand on all of these areas.
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.
Frechtling, J., Silverstein, G., & Wang, L. W. (2004). Evaluation of the Voyager Universal Literacy System: Year 2. Retrieved from the Voyager Learning website in 2007.
Reviewed: August 2007
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 Voyager Universal Literacy System®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
4.73 |
1.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
3.66 |
1.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Nonwords subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
2.67 |
1.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
4.89 |
3.14 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
39.39 |
35.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
3.47 |
2.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Voyager Universal Literacy System® vs. business as usual |
Pretest |
Kindergarten;
|
9.83 |
8.31 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 95% |
Eight schools from Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, DC, were included in the study.
The study included 447 Kindergarten students. The final analysis sample included 398 students (202 intervention and 196 comparison students). Over 95% of students were African-American and almost 90% of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch.
Students received two hours of the Voyager Universal Literacy System® program daily, which included whole group instruction (20 minutes); differentiated, small group instruction, including two student-led independent stations and one teacher-led station (70 minutes); and a teacher-facilitated writing activity (30 minutes). According to study authors, 9 of 11 teachers demonstrated high or moderate fidelity to the intervention and 2 demonstrated low fidelity.
The comparison condition used the schools’ existing reading program and the teachers were already familiar with the curriculum. The study authors noted that comparison schools used reading activities that explicitly addressed phonemic awareness, phonics, and sight words and that literacy skills were also integrated into other lessons. Small groups were routinely used in literacy instruction. One comparison school had large numbers of students who resided in a homeless shelter or domestic violence center, and another accepted students from out of the typical school boundaries through a lottery. According to study authors, these characteristics may have led to lower and higher parental involvement, respectively.
Measures used for both pretests and posttests include the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Elision, Blending Words, Blending Nonwords, and Segmenting Words subtests; the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) test of Letter Naming Fluency; and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R) Word Identification and Word Attack subtests.2 (See Appendix A2.1–2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Voyager Universal Literacy System® training includes an initial two-day session for district and campus coaches and a three-day training session for teachers. There were also eight 3-hour professional development modules throughout the school year. In addition, Voyager Universal Literacy System® staff periodically observed teachers during the reading block to assess implementation fidelity.
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.
Frechtling, J., Zhang, X., & Wang, L. W. (2004). Evaluation of the Voyager Universal Literacy System: Year 2. Retrieved from Voyager Expanded Learning Web site: http://www.voyagerlearning.com/docs/difference/report_studies/WESTAT_Voyager_2004_3.pdf.
Frechtling, J., Silverstein, G., & Zhang, X. (2003). Evaluation of the Voyager Universal Literacy System. Retrieved from Voyager Expanded Learning Web site: http://www.voyagerlearning.com/docs/difference/report_studies/Westat.pdf.
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