docEvaluation of Earobics Step 1 in Low SES Minority Children
download 
Report Transcription
Evaluation of Earobics Step 1 in Low SES Minority Children
Evaluation of Earobics Step 1 in Low SES Minority Children & English Language Learners Jason Anthony Efficacy of computerized Earobics and Building Blocks instruc4on in various classroom contexts Jason Anthony Funding source: US DOE, Institute of Educational Sciences Early Education and Technology for Children Salt Lake City, Utah (April 3, 2011) Research Questions 1. Does Earobics improve literacy? 2. Does Building Blocks improve math? 3. Does the impact of Earobics vary as a function of classroom contexts? What did the computer tutors teach our children? Earobics step 1 teaches " Phonological Awareness " Alphabet knowledge " Sound discrimination " Memory for sounds What did the computer tutors teach our children? Building Blocks teaches " Shapes " Numeracy & Counting " Patterning " Arithmetic Sample Demographics Monolingual Eng. Group N= 551 Ave. Age = 5:7 50% boys, 50% girls 100% monolingual English 51% AA 42% Hispanic 4% Biracial 2% White Study Design " Children within 37 classrooms randomly assigned " Earobics " Building Blocks Computerized Intervention " " " " " " " 45 min. of literacy or mathematics 2 days per week in school’s computer lab each wave lasts 6 weeks 3 waves of intervention intervention waves separated by progress monitoring RAs supervised the intervention Project Timeline " Timeline for assessment and intervention: test--TX--test--TX--test--TX--test 2wk-6wk-2wk-6wk-2wk-6wk-2wk " Classroom observations late in TX phases " 3 Annual cohorts Measures in Child Test Battery " Phonological Awareness " Blending " Elision " Rhyming " Reading " Graphophonemic knowledge " Word Reading " Mathematics " REMA " Vocabulary " EOWPVT Blending test items Blending free response items: " mom + /i/ = mommy " /f/ + /I/ + /s/ + /t/ = fist Blending multiple choice items Elision test items Elision free response items " candy - de = can " nice - /n/ = ice Elision multiple choice items Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence T Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence sh " Word Reading Classroom Observations Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS) " 90 minutes during language arts block " observers blind to study aims " rate frequency and quality of instructional bx Classroom Observations Scales on TBRS " Phonics " Oral Reading " Small Group Reading " Read Alouds " Oral Language " Phonological Awareness " General Teaching Quality " Quality of Oral Language Instruction Preanalysis Data Inspection 1. Ceiling effects on PA measures in Wave 4. So growth models based on Waves 1, 2, & 3 2. REMA only admin. in Wave 1 and Wave 4. So growth models based on Waves 1 & 4 Does Earobics Step 1 improve reading? 1. No main effects of Earobics on growth in distal measures of word reading or graphophonemic knowledge. Word Reading 20 18 16 14 Building Blocks 12 Earobics 10 8 6 4 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Does Earobics Step 1 improve Phonological Awareness? 1. No main effects of Earobics on growth in proximal measures of phonological awareness. Phoneme Awareness 14 13 12 Building Blocks 11 Earobics 10 9 8 7 6 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 REMA Raw Score Does Building Blocks improve mathematics? 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Earobics Building Blocks WAVE 1 WAVE 4 Does Earobics and classroom instruction interact to impact learning? 1. Yes, Earobics is more beneficial in some classrooms 2. Which classrooms? 3. 2 patterns of findings • One pattern for literacy instruction • Another pattern for language instruction Growth in Blending by Frequency of Phonics Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 37 35 B.B. Low_Phonics 33 B.B. AVE_Phonics B.B. High_Phonics 31 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Blending by Frequency of Phonics Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 37 35 Ear. Low_Phonics 33 Ear. AVE_Phonics Ear. High_Phonics 31 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Blending by Frequency of Phonics Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 37 B.B. Low_Phonics 35 B.B. AVE_Phonics B.B. High_Phonics 33 Ear. Low_Phonics 31 Ear. AVE_Phonics Ear. High_Phonics 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence by Frequency of Writing Instruction and Group 29 27 Raw Score 25 B.B. Low_Writing B.B. AVE_Writing 23 B.B. High_Writing Ear. Low_Writing 21 Ear. AVE_Writing Ear. High_Writing 19 17 15 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Word Reading by Frequency of Writing Instruction and Group Word Reading Factor Score 3 1 -1 B.B. Low_Writing B.B. AVE_Writing B.B. High_Writing -3 Ear. Low_Writing Ear. AVE_Writing -5 Ear. High_Writing -7 -9 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Conclusion from findings concerning literacy instruction: Earobics group benefitted more from increased amounts of instruction in phonics and writing. Specifically they demonstrated quicker rates of learning PA, graphophonemic knowledge, and reading. Growth in Blending by Frequency of Oral Language Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 Ear. Low_Language 37 35 Ear. AVE_Language 33 31 Ear. High_Language 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Blending by Frequency of Oral Language Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 B.B. Low_Language 37 35 B.B. AVE_language 33 31 B.B. High_Language 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Blending by Frequency of Oral Language Instruction and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 B.B. Low_Language 37 B.B. AVE_language 35 B.B. High_Language 33 Ear. Low_Language Ear. AVE_Language 31 Ear. High_Language 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Blending by Frequency of Read Aloud and Group 43 Blending Raw Score 41 39 37 B.B. Low_Read Aloud 35 B.B. AVE_Read Aloud B.B. High_Read Aloud 33 Ear. Low_Read Aloud Ear. AVE_Read Aloud 31 Ear. High_Read Aloud 29 27 25 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Word Reading by Frequency of Oral Language Instruction and Group Word Reading Factor Score 3 1 -1 B.B. Low_Language B.B. AVE_Language B.B. High_Language -3 Ear. Low_Language Ear. AVE_Language -5 Ear. High_Language -7 -9 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Word Reading by Frequency of Read Alouds and Group Word Reading Factor Score 3 1 -1 B.B. Low_Read Aloud B.B. AVE_Read Aloud B.B. High_Read Aloud -3 Ear. Low_Read Aloud Ear. AVE_Read Aloud -5 Ear. High_Read Aloud -7 -9 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Conclusions from second pattern of findings: " Higher amounts of oral language instruction are associated with quicker rates of growth in phonological awareness and reading if children receive Earobics. " More frequent oral language instruction is associated with slower rates of growth in phonological awareness and reading if children don’t receive supplemental Earobics instruction. " So if lots of oral language instruction slows literacy growth in the absence of supplemental Earobics instruction, should we do it? Growth in Vocabulary by Frequency of Oral Language Instruction and Group EOWPVT Raw Score 54 52 50 B.B. Low_Language B.B. AVE_Language B.B. High_Language 48 Ear. Low_Language Ear. AVE_Language 46 Ear. High_Language 44 42 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Vocabulary by Frequency of Read Alouds and Group EOWPVT Raw Score 54 52 50 B.B. Low_Read Aloud B.B. AVE_Read Aloud B.B. High_Read Aloud 48 Ear. Low_Read Aloud Ear. AVE_Read Aloud 46 Ear. High_Read Aloud 44 42 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Follow-up Question " So if lots of oral language instruction slows literacy growth in the absence of supplemental Earobics instruction, what type of instruction do control kids need to improve literacy? Growth in Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence by Frequency of Small Group Reading Instruction and Group 29 27 Raw Score 25 23 B.B. Low_SGrpread B.B. AVE_Sgrpread 21 B.B. High_Sgrpread 19 17 15 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence by Frequency of Small Group Reading Instruction and Group 29 27 Raw Score 25 B.B. Low_SGrpread 23 B.B. AVE_Sgrpread 21 Ear. Low_Sgrpread B.B. High_Sgrpread Ear. AVE_Sgrpread Ear. High_Sgrpread 19 17 15 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Growth in Vocabulary by Frequency of Small Group Reading Instruction and Group 54 Raw Score 52 50 B.B. Low_SGrpread B.B. AVE_Sgrpread B.B. High_Sgrpread 48 Ear. Low_Sgrpread Ear. AVE_Sgrpread 46 Ear. High_Sgrpread 44 42 WAVE1 WAVE2 WAVE3 Conclusions " Building Blocks accelerated growth in Math " Earobics did not speed growth in PA or reading " Earobics children get more out of literacy instruction " Oral language Instruction speeds growth in vocab " Oral language Instruction slows growth in literacy, unless child receives supplemental PA intervention " Small group reading instruction improves literacy outcomes but slows growth in vocabulary. " Trade offs between what to teach " Trade offs less evident with supplemental intervention Limitations " Only results from 1st observation reported " Sample was all ethnic minorities from low SES " Building Blocks effects based on only 2 waves " Longitudinal follow-up needed to see if impacts last " computer interventions evaluated as standalone