Schechter, Rachel; Macaruso, Paul; Kazakoff, Elizabeth R.; Brooke, Elizabeth (2015). Computers in the Schools, v32 n3-4 p183-200. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1082218
Reviewed: October 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension from GRADE |
Blended learning vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
108.28 |
100.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total test |
Blended learning vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
109.13 |
102.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Vocabulary from GRADE |
Blended learning vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
106.10 |
105.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 11% | |
| White | 4% |
| Hispanic | 86% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 15% |
The study took place within one urban elementary school located in western Massachusetts. The study included 4 different classrooms.
The analytic intervention group contained 23 males and 22 females with 89% being Hispanic, 9% Black, and 2% White. Intervention students had an average age of 86.8 months. Fourteen students were classified as ELL. The analytic comparison group contained 14 males and 24 females with 82% being Hispanic, 13% Black, and 5% White. Intervention students had an average age of 85.7 months. Seven students were classified as ELL.
The blended learning combined teacher-led instruction with technology-based instruction for language arts classes. All classrooms use the LEAD21 ELA curriculum. The intervention classrooms incorporated the Lexia Reading Core5 (Core5) system into language arts regular curriculum. The Core5 system provides online activities, resources for teachers, ongoing assessment, and independent offline work. The teachers incorporate Core5 with their regular instruction. Students were instructed to use the computers in their classrooms by their teachers based on the Prescriptions of Intensity. The Core5 system was used in these classrooms beginning in October 2012 and through June 2013. Students still received the total 150 minutes of ELA instruction per day.
Classrooms in the comparison condition continued to use the LEAD21 ELA curriculum as normal. These classrooms did not incorporate the CORE5 system into their instruction. Comparison group students also received the total 150 minutes of ELA instruction per day; just with the absence of the technology-based piece.
Teachers implementing the blended learning approach participated in a half-day orientation session prior to implementation. This session trained them in the best practices for integrating online learning and offline instructional materials of Core5. Two members of the research team also conducted ongoing monitoring in the classrooms for fidelity.
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