Baker, Doris Luft; Basaraba, Deni Lee; Smolkowski, Keith; Conry, Jillian; Hautala, Jarkko; Richardson, Ulla; English, Sherryl; Cole, Ron (2017). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588912
Reviewed: April 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IDEL-Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (IDEL FPS) |
GraphoGame Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
122.56 |
123.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
GraphoGame Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
65.52 |
72.25 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IDEL Fluidez en la Lectura Oral (IDEL FLO) |
GraphoGame Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
53.65 |
50.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
GraphoGame Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.05 |
49.73 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 100% |
The study took place in three schools with bilingual programs using a one-way dual language model in a large urban area in Texas. The schools were located in a high-poverty neighborhood.
Five classrooms in the three schools were randomly assigned to condition. Three classrooms received the intervention, while two received business as usual. Eighty students total were in the selected classrooms, with 47 students in the intervention condition and 33 students in the comparison condition. Due to absences, data from one comparison student and one intervention student were missing. Therefore, the analytic sample was reduced to 78 students, where 46 students received the intervention and 32 students received the comparison condition. All students in the study sample were bilingual and Hispanic. 53 percent were male and 77 percent were identified as having limited English proficiency. No other demographic information on the sample was provided.
GraphoGame is a Spanish-language computer game that teaches students letter sound knowledge, decoding and word level fluency. Students work through multiple levels that start with the easiest units of speech but then move on to challenging syllables and eventually complex words. As part of the game, students listen to spoken sounds and then to click correctly to the letters or sets of letters that correspond to these sounds. If a student responds incorrectly, the game provides additional learning opportunities for the student until they are able to select the correct response an average of 80 percent of the time. Game levels are short and on average last from one to three minutes, meaning that students can move through multiple levels during 10 minutes of play. Students in the intervention group played GraphoGame-Spanish for 16 weeks for 10 minutes per day. They played the game during language arts instruction in either a classroom or computer lab setting. If students played the game in class, 4-5 students sat at a computer and played together. If students played in the computer lab, each student played at their own computer.
The comparison condition was business-as-usual instruction in study classrooms. Teachers in these classrooms engaged in independent activities such as reading, drawing, or playing word games.
Teachers in the intervention group received a 2-hour training on GraphoGame, including instruction on how to set it up and assist students with difficulties logging in to the program. During this training, teachers also played the game to understand how the game operates. Teachers received technical support from the researchers throughout the study.
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