TheEfficacyofComputerAssistedInstructionforAdvancingLiteracySkillsin KindergartenChildren runninghead: keywords: Advancingliteracyskillsinkindergartenchildren kindergarten,computer,instruction,phonologicalawareness,phonics

PaulMacaruso CommunityCollegeofRhodeIsland Lincoln,RI PamelaE.Hook MGHInstituteofHealthProfessions Boston,MA RobertMcCabeandAdelaideWalker LexiaLearningSystems Lincoln,MA Addresscorrespondence: PaulMacaruso DepartmentofPsychology CommunityCollegeofRhodeIsland 1762LouisquissetPike Lincoln,RI02865 email: pmacaruso@ccri.edu

Abstract Inthisstudyweexaminedthebenefitsofcomputerassistedinstruction(CAI)usedto supplementaphonicsbasedreadingcurriculumforkindergartnersinanurbanpublic schoolsystem.TheCAIprogramprovidessystematicexercisesinphonological awarenessandsimplesound/symbolcorrespondences.Comparisonsweremadebetween childreninclassesreceivingCAIandchildreninmatched,controlclassestaughtbythe sameteacherbutwithoutCAIsupport.Studentswereincludedinthetreatmentgroupif theyusedtheCAIprogramforasufficient,prescribedamountoftime(approximately16 hoursoversixmonths).Thetreatmentandcontrolgroupsdidnotdifferonpretest measuresofpreliteracyskills.Therewere,however,significantdifferencesbetween groupsonposttestmeasuresofreadingskills.Thegreatestposttestdifferenceswere foundwhenanalyseswererestrictedtostudentswiththelowestpretestscores.

AccordingtoTheNationsReportCard:Reading2002(Grigg,Daane,Jin,&Campbell,2003), morethan50%ofstudentsintheUnitedStatestodayscorebelowgradelevelontestsof reading(Sweet,2004).Toaddressthisliteracycrisis,ithasbeenstronglyrecommended intheNationalReadingCouncilreport,PreventingReadingDifficultiesinYoungChildren (Snow,Burns,&Griffin,1998),thatearlyreadinginstructionshouldbegearedtothe developmentofphonicwordattackstrategies.Akeycomponentinbuildingphonics skillsisphonologicalawareness(Adams,1990;Liberman&Shankweiler,1985;Share& Stanovich,1995;Wagner&Torgesen,1987).Phonologicalawarenessrequirestheability toanalyzethesoundstructureofspokenlanguage.Inparticular,itincludestheabilityto segmentwordsintosyllablesandsmallersoundunits,aswellastoblendtheseunitsback intowords.Facilityinprocessingsoundunitsinspokenlanguageprovidesafoundation formasteryofsoundsymbolcorrespondencerulesemployedinidentifyingwordsin print.Inmanyinstances,typicallydevelopingchildrenwillreadilyacquireboth phonologicalawarenessandphonicsskillsinthecontextofregularclassroominstruction; however,inthecaseofyoungstrugglingreaders,amoreintenseefforttobuildtheseskills isnecessarytopreventfurtherdeclineatlaterages(Torgesen,2004). Anumberofresearchershaveinvestigatedtheefficacyoftrainingphonological awarenessonacquisitionofliteracyskillsinchildren(formetaanalyses,seeBus&van Ijzendoorn,1999;Ehri,Nunes,Willows,Schuster,YaghoubZadeh,&Shanahan,2001). AccordingtotheReportoftheNationalReadingPanel(NationalInstituteofChildHealth andHumanDevelopment[NICHD],2000),traininginphonologicalawarenesscan providebenefitsintheacquisitionofearlyliteracyskills.Forexample,inastudywith kindergartnersTorgesen,Morgan,andDavis(1992)dividedtheirparticipantsintothree groupsonereceivedpracticeinsoundblending,asecondreceivedpracticeinsound segmentingandblending,andathirdreceivednoexplicitphonologicaltraining. Improvementsinthetargetedphonologicalawarenessskillswerefoundinbothtraining 4

groups;inaddition,participantsinthesegmentingandblendinggroupwereabletolearn anovelsetofwordsatafasterratethanchildrenintheothergroups(seealsoBrady, Fowler,&Stone,1994;Lundberg,Frost,&Petersen,1988). Fromtheirmetaanalysis,BusandvanIjzendoorn(1999)concludedthatphonological awarenesstrainingisparticularlybeneficialforyoungreaderswhenitiscombinedwith instructioninphonicwordattackstrategies.Forinstance,BallandBlachman(1991) providedinstructioninphonologicalawareness(segmentingwordsintophonemes)and simplephonics(basicsoundsymbolcorrespondences)toagroupofkindergartners.After instruction,thesechildrenperformedsignificantlyhigheronawordreadingtestthan kindergartnerswhoworkedongenerallanguageactivitiesandphonics(without phonologicalawareness).Similarfindingswereobtainedinarecentlargescalestudy withkindergartners(andprekindergartners)conductedbyHatcher,Hulme,and Snowling(2004).Theyreportedsignificantbenefitsinreadingwordsandnonwords followingclassroominstructioninphonememanipulationandphonics.Children receivingphonememanipulationplusphonicsoutperformedchildrenreceivingphonics alone.Hatcheretal.(2004)noted,however,thatthebenefitsofphonicsplusphoneme manipulationoccurredforlowperformingchildrenonly.Averagetoaboveaverage performersshowedstrongbenefitsfromphonicsalone. Anumberofresearchershavestudiedthebenefitsofcomputerassistedinstruction(CAI) tosupportreadingdevelopmentinlowperformingchildren(forreview,seeMacArthur, Ferretti,Okolo&Cavalier,2001).Ingeneral,CAIiswellsuitedasasupplementaryaidto directreadinginstruction.Computersarecapableofpresentingactivitiesthatare interestingandmotivationaltochildrenincludingtheuseofpictorialdisplaysand positivefeedback.Childrencanworkattheirownpaceandreceiveenoughpracticeto supportwordrecognitionskillsandeventuallyfluenttextreading. 5

 ManyoftheCAIprogramshavetargetedphonologicalawarenessskills.Twoofthe programsareDaisyQuestandDaisysCastle(Foster,Erickson,Forster,Brinkman,& Torgesen,1994).Theseprogramsprovideactivitiesinsoundidentificationand segmentationofwordsintosounds.Fosteretal.reportedthatpreschoolersand kindergartnersreceivingCAIshowedsignificantgainsinphonologicalawarenessskills comparedtochildrennotreceivingCAIsupport.InasubsequentstudyTorgesenand Barker(1995)foundthatpracticewithDaisyQuestandDaisysCastleleadtosignificant improvementsinphonologicalawarenessandwordreadingskillsinfirstgraders identifiedaslaggingbehindtheirpeersindecodingabilities.Morerecently,Mitchelland Fox(2001)reportedsignificantandcomparablegainsonphonologicalprocessingtasksin twogroupsoflowperformingkindergartnersandfirstgraders,onegroupreceived teacherdeliveredphonologicalawarenesstrainingandthesecondgroupusedDaisyQuest andDaisysCastle.SimilarbenefitsofCAIasatoolforlearningphonologicalawareness andsound/symbolcorrespondencesinsupportofreadinginstructionhavebeenfoundfor Dutchspeakingkindergartners(Reitsma&Wesseling,1998;vanDaal&Reitsma,2000) andforchildrenlearningtoreadHebrew(Mioduser,TurKaspa,&Leitner,2000). Inacomprehensivestudyinvolving200studentsingrades2through5identifiedaspoor readers,Wise,RingandOlson(2000)contrastedtwoCAIprogramsforenhancingreading skillsphonologicalanalysis,whichincludedpracticeidentifyingsoundsinnonwords andmanipulatingsound/letterpatterns,andaccuratereadingincontext,whichmainly focusedonlearningstrategiesforreadingcomprehension.Overall,Wiseetal.foundthat phonologicalanalysisprovidedgreaterbenefitsinphonologicalawarenessskillsand untimedwordreadingthanaccuratereadingincontext,particularlyforchildrenwho hadthelowestinitialreadinglevels. 6

AlthoughmostpublishedstudiesreportbenefitsofCAIforreadingacquisition,arecent studybyPaterson,Henry,OQuin,Ceprano,andBlue(2003)failedtofindsupportfor CAI.Patersonetal.investigatedtheeffectivenessoftheWaterfordEarlyReading Program,Level1(WERP1)inkindergartenclassroomsfromanurbanpublicschool system.WERP1providespracticeinrhyming,soundsegmentingandblending,alphabet skills,andconceptsofprint.Usingdatafromanobservationalsurveyofearlyliteracy skills,Patersonetal.reportednodifferencesbetweenchildreninclassroomsreceiving WERP1andchildrenincontrolclasseswithoutWERP1.Instead,teachervariablessuch asliteracyfacilitationandinstructionaltimewereassociatedwithdifferencesin classroomperformance(seealsoWeiner,1994).Inarelatedstudy,however,Hechtand Close(2002)comparedkindergartnersinclassroomsreceivingWERP1with kindergartnersfromclassroomswithoutCAI.IncontrasttoPatersonetal.(2003),Hecht andClosefoundsignificantlyhigherposttestscoresontestsofphonologicalawareness andwordreadingforkindergartnersintheWERP1classrooms.HechtandClosealso notedwidevariationsamongchildreninamountoftimeusingtheWERP1software,and amainpredictorofposttestscoreswastimeusingtheWERP1. Forthisresearchproject,weextendedarecentlycompletedstudyexaminingthebenefits oftwoCAIprogramsPhonicsBasedReadingandStrategiesforOlderStudents(Lexia LearningSystems,2001)designedtosupplementreadinginstructioninfirstgraders (Macaruso,Hook,&McCabe,inpress).Theprogramsprovidesystematicexercisesfor masteringwordattackstrategies.Wefoundthatchildrenbothinclassroomsreceiving CAIandincontrolclassroomsbenefitedfromreceivingregularphonicsbasedreading instructionaspartoftheirdailycurriculum.However,whenanalyseswererestrictedto atrisk,lowperformingchildren,significantlyhighergainsinreadingwerefoundfor childrenreceivingCAIcomparedtochildrenincontrolclassrooms. 7

Inthisreport,wediscussfindingsfromaninterventionstudyinwhichCAIin phonologicalawarenessandearlyphonicsskillswasprovidedtokindergartenchildren. TheCAIprogramcalledEarlyReading(LexiaLearningSystems,2003)isdesignedto supplementclassroominstructioninbuildingafoundationforemergingliteracyskills. EarlyReadingcontainsavarietyofactivitiesinvolvingsoundidentification,rhyming, segmentingandblendingofsounds,andapplicationofsound/symbolcorrespondences forsubsetsofconsonantsandvowels.Theactivitiesmakeuseofvisualgraphics,are highlyinteractive,andarefollowedbyimmediatefeedback.Theactivitiesbranch automaticallybasedonthestudentsindividualperformance,reviewingwhennecessary andmovingtomoreadvanceditemswheneasieroneshavebeenmastered. WehadanopportunitytoevaluateEarlyReadingunderconditionsinwhichclassroom, teacher,andinstructionvariableswereheldconstant.Comparisonsweremadebetween classesreceivingCAIandcontrolclassestaughtbythesameteacherinthesame classroombutwithoutCAIsupport.Moststudiesthatattempttoassessthebenefitsof CAItosupplementreadinginstructiondonotincludeadequatecontrolsforteacherand classroomvariables,andthesevariablesareknowntohaveasignificantimpactonthe academicperformanceofyoungchildren(e.g.,Patersonetal.,2003;seeTroia,1999).The presentstudyallowedustoassesstheeffectivenessofCAIinthecontextofmatched classes.AsecondpurposeofthisstudywastoaddressdirectlythebenefitsofCAIfor kindergartnersidentifiedaslowperformers.TherehasbeenevidenceindicatingthatCAI canbeparticularlyeffectiveforchildrenatriskforlearningproblems(seeMacArthuret al.,2001;Macarusoetal,2005;Mitchell&Fox,2001;Wiseetal.,2000).Afinalgoalofthe studywastoinvestigatetheeffectsofprogramuseonreadingperformancewithinthe treatmentclasses.ChildrenwhomadesufficientuseofCAIwereanalyzedseparately fromthosewhodidnot(seeHecht&Close,2002). 8

METHOD Participants:Sixkindergartenclasseswereselectedforparticipationinthisexperiment. TheclasseswerelocatedintwourbanelementaryschoolsinagreaterBostonschool district.Thesixclassesconsistedofamorningclassandanafternoonclasstaughtby threeteachers.Oneclassforeachteacherwasrandomlyassignedtotreatmentandthe otherclassforthatteacherwasconsideredacontrolclass.Onemorningclassandtwo afternoonclassesweretreatmentclasses,andtwomorningclassesandoneafternoonclass werecontrolclasses.Therewere47students(23male,24female)intreatmentclassesand 47students(22male,25female)incontrolclasses.Themeanageofstudentsintreatment classeswas67months(sd=3.9),andthemeanageforstudentsincontrolclasseswas66 months(sd=3.7).Thestudentscamefromdiversesocioculturalbackgrounds. Approximately20%ofthefamiliesintheschooldistrictwereforeignborn,and29%ofthe studentsinthesamplespokealanguageotherthanEnglishathome.Economicdata reflectthecitysrelativelackofprosperity.Themedianhouseholdincomeof$37,000was wellbelowthemedianlevelinMassachusetts(approximately$50,000). ThetreatmentclassescontainedsixstudentsclassifiedasESLandthreestudentseligible forspecialeducation(SPED)services.TherewerenoESLstudentsandtwoSPED studentsinthecontrolclasses.GiventheunevennumberofESL/SPEDstudentsinthe twogroups,thesestudentswereexcludedfromthesample.Thereducedsample consistedof38students(19male,19female)intreatmentclassesand45students(20male, 25female)incontrolclasses. ThetreatmentclassesbeganusingLexiasoftwareinNovember,2003andcontinuedfor approximatelysixmonths.Thesoftwareisdesignedforregularweeklyuse(twotofour weeklysessionsof1520minuteseach).Thesoftwaretrackssessionscompletedforeach 9

student.Themeannumberofsessionscompletedwas48,witharangeof3062sessions. Studentstookpartinvaryingnumbersofsessionsmainlyduetoabsencesandscheduling discrepanciesacrossclasses.GivenevidencethatsufficientuseofCAIisneededto supportgainsinliteracy(e.g.,Hecht&Close,2002),wesetasaminimumcriterion45 sessionscompleted(i.e.,approximatelytwosessionsperweek)forastudenttobe includedinthetreatmentgroup.Therewere26students(outof38nonESL/SPED studentsinthetreatmentclasses)whometthecriterionandwereplacedinthefinal treatmentgroup.Thesestudents(12males,14females)averaged52sessionscompleted. Allanalysesinvolvingthetreatmentgroupincludedthese26studentsonly.The remaining12studentswhodidnotmeetthecriterionarereferredtoaslowusers.The lowusersaveraged38sessions. MaterialsandProcedures:Alltreatmentandcontrolclasseswereengagedindaily readinginstructionusingsomeformofexplicitphonicsinstructionbasedonScott ForesmanReading(McFall,2000)and/orBradleyReadingandLanguageArts(Bradley,1999). ScottForesmanReadingisacomprehensivereadingprogramthatincludesactivitiesinoral vocabulary,phonemicawareness,lettersoundrecognition,andstorycomprehension.It containsteachingresources,assessmenthandbooks,studentstorybooks,writingmaterials andmanipulatives.BradleyReadingandLanguageArtsisamultisensory,systematic phonicsprogram.Eachteacherreportedfollowingthesamescopeandsequenceof readinginstructionforhertreatmentandcontrolclasses. TheEarlyReadingprogramwasinstalledonthenetworksineachschoolbuildingand mappedtoindividualclassroomandlaboratorystations.Nearlyalloftheprogramuse occurredincomputerlaboratories.Thekindergartenteachersandlaboratorystaff memberstookpartinorientationandtrainingsessionsforsoftwareimplementation. EarlyReadinghastwolevels.Level1contains4skillactivitiesand56discreteunits.The 10

activitiesinLevel1aredesignedtoenhancephonologicalawarenessskills,including recognitionofinitialandfinalsoundsinwords,rhymingwords,segmentingwordsinto syllablesandsounds,andblendingsyllablesandsoundsintowords.Level2contains5 skillactivitiesand60discreteunits.Level2activitiesreinforcerecognitionofinitialand finalsoundsandintroducesound/symbolcorrespondencesforconsonants,vowelsand consonantdigraphs.Bothlevelsmakeuseofmatchingtaskswithauditory/visualstimuli (e.g.,matchingthesound/b/ortheletterbwithapicturedobjectbeginningwiththat soundorletter,suchasbook).Theactivitiesarehighlystructuredandsystematic,building frombasictomoreadvancedskills.EachstudentwasinitiallyplacedinLevel1andthen workedindependentlythroughtheactivities.Duringthetimewhenstudentsinthe treatmentclasseswereparticipatingintheLexiaprograms,studentsinthecontrolclasses werereceivingregularclassroominstruction. Thesoftwareprogramrecordsskillunitscompletedforeachstudent.Themeannumber ofskillunitscompletedbythe26studentsinthetreatmentgroupwas66(range:30116). SixteenofthesestudentsworkedexclusivelyonLevel1activitiesand10advancedto Level2activities. TwosubtestsfromtheDynamicIndicatorsofBasicEarlyLiteracySkills,6thEdition(DIBELS) (Good&Kaminski,2003)wereadministeredbytheschooldistrictatthebeginningofthe schoolyear(September,2003).ThesubtestswereInitialSoundFluency(ISF)andLetter NamingFluency(LNF).TheISFsubtestrequiresthestudenttolookatasetoffour picturesandeitherpointtothepicturethatbeginswithasoundproducedbythetesteror saytheinitialsoundofanorallypresentedwordthatmatchesoneofthepictures.Scoring isbasedonthenumberofinitialsoundsidentifiedorproducedcorrectlyinoneminute. FortheLNFsubtest,thestudentisaskedtonamealoudasmanylettersaspossibleinone minute.Thelettersarepresentedrandomlyinrowsoften,withuppercaseandlowercase 11

lettersmixedineachrow.RawscoresontheDIBELSsubtestsservedaspretestmeasures ofearlyliteracyskills.TheGatesMacGinitieReadingTest,LevelPR(W.MacGinitie,R. MacGinitie,Maria,&Dreyer,2000)wasadministeredattheendoftheschoolyear(June, 2004)andservedasaposttestassessmentofliteracyrelatedskills.LevelPRcontainsfour subtestsorallanguageconcepts(phonologicalawareness),lettersandlettersound correspondences,literacyconcepts,andlistening(story)comprehension.Dependent measuresincludedrawscoresforeachsubtestandanormalcurveequivalent(NCE)score basedonthetotalrawscore.(Note:NCEscoresareona100pointscalewithameanof 50andastandarddeviationof21.1.) RESULTS Overallfindings.Table1presentsmeanpretestrawscoresonthetwoDIBELSsubtests forstudentsinthetreatmentandcontrolgroups.Therewerenosignificantdifferences betweengroupsonpretestscores:ISF(t(69)=1.13,p=.26)andLNF(t(69)=0.63,p=.53). However,ananalysisofcovariancecomparingposttestNCEscoresontheGates MacGinitieReadingTestwithbothDIBELSpretestscoresascovariatesrevealeda significantgroupdifference,F(1,67)=4.80,p=.03.ThemeanNCEscorewassignificantly higherforthetreatmentgroup(54.2,sd=18.0)thanthecontrolgroup(46.4,sd=14.3). (SeeFigure1.) Table1.MeanpretestrawscoresontheDIBELSforallstudentsinthetreatmentand controlgroupsandforlowperformersinthetwogroups. 12

_______________________________________________________________________________ Allstudents Control(N=45) Mean 8.9 SD 7.1

Treatment(N=26) Mean 7.1 SD 5.1

InitialSoundFluency LetterNamingFluency InitialSoundFluency LetterNamingFluency

14.2

14.0

12.0

13.5

Lowperformers Control(N=12) Mean SD

Treatment(N=12) Mean SD

3.1

2.8

2.3

3.3

12.2

11.5

10.8

10.4

______________________________________________________________________________ 13

FIGURE1.MeanNCEposttestscoresontheGatesMacGinitieReadingTestfor:a)all childreninthetreatmentandcontrolgroups,andb)lowperformersinthetreatmentand controlgroups. a)

70 Treatment Mean NCE scores 60 Control

50

40

30 Post-test

b)

70 Treatment Mean NCE scores 60 Control

50

40

30 Post-test

14

Asecondsetofanalyseswasconductedtocomparegroupsonposttestrawscoresforthe foursubtestsoftheGatesMacGinitie(seeTable2).UsingbothDIBELSpretestscoresas covariates,asignificantdifferencebetweengroupswasfoundontheorallanguage concepts(phonologicalawareness)subtest,F(1,67)=4.78,p=.03.Themeanscorewas significantlyhigherforthetreatmentgroup(14.8)thanthecontrolgroup(12.8).Mean scoresforthetreatmentgroupwereuniformlyhigherthanforthecontrolgrouponthe remainingsubtests(literacyconcepts,lettersandlettersoundcorrespondences,listening comprehension),howevergroupdifferenceswerenotsignificant(p>.15foralltests). Table2.MeanposttestrawscoresonthefoursubtestsoftheGatesMacGinitieReading Testforallstudents. _______________________________________________________________________________ OralLanguageConcepts (20items) LettersandLetterSound Correspondences(30items) LiteracyConcepts(20items) ListeningComprehension (20items) _______________________________________________________________________________ 15 13.6 3.8 12.6 3.5 16.8 2.8 15.7 3.0 24.7 4.5 23.7 5.4 14.8 4.0 12.8 3.5 Treatment(N=26) Mean SD Control(N=45) Mean SD

Lowperformers.TodetermineifEarlyReadingmightbeparticularlybeneficialforlow performingstudents,asubanalysiswasconductedwithstudentsinthetwogroupswho producedthelowestscoresontheDIBELSISFpretest(i.e.,thebottomfourscorersineach ofthethreetreatmentclassesandthebottomfourscorersineachofthethreecontrol classes).Thesestudentswereselectedbecausetheyshowedsignsofweakphonological awarenessskillsandthuscouldbenefitgreatlyfromparticipatinginEarlyReading.Table 1includesmeanpretestDIBELSscoresforthetwogroupsoflowperformers.Group differencesonpretestscoreswerenotsignificant(ISF,t(22)=0.60,p=.55;LNF,t(22)= 0.30,p=.77).Usingthepretestscoresascovariates,thegroupsshowedasignificant differenceatposttestonoverallGatesMacGinitieNCEscores,F(1,20)=11.00,p<.01.The meanNCEscorewassignificantlyhigherforthetreatmentgroup(55.8,sd=12.3) comparedtothecontrolgroup(41.6,sd=5.9).(SeeFigure1).Anexaminationof individualstudentsscoresrevealedthat8ofthe12lowperformersinthetreatment groupobtainedaposttestNCEscoreaboveaverage(50)comparedtoonly1ofthe12low performersinthecontrolgroup. Table3presentsmeanposttestrawscoresforlowperformersinthetwogroupsonthe foursubtestsoftheGatesMacGinitieReadingTest.Analysisofcovarianceshowsthatthe treatmentgroupsignificantlyoutperformedthecontrolgroupontheorallanguage concepts(phonologicalawareness)subtest(F(1,20)=7.95,p=.01).Althoughthetreatment groupproducedhigherscoresontheremainingsubtests,thegroupdifferencesfailedto reachsignificance(.10<p<.25forthesetests). Table3.MeanposttestrawscoresonthefoursubtestsoftheGatesMacGinitieReading Testforlowperformers. 16

_______________________________________________________________________________ OralLanguageConcepts (20items) LettersandLetterSound Correspondences(30items) LiteracyConcepts(20items) ListeningComprehension (20items) _______________________________________________________________________________ Astheseanalysesshow,thepatternofresultsforlowperformersmirroredthepattern seenfortheentiresample.However,itshouldbenotedthatdifferencesfavoringthe treatmentgroupweregreaterforlowperformersthanfortheentiresample.Effectsizes fortheentiresamplewereinthemoderaterange(.48forNCEscores,.53fororallanguage concepts),whereaseffectsizesforlowperformerswerequitestrong(1.56forNCEscores, 1.24fororallanguageconcepts). Highandlowusers.Ourfinalanalysiscomparedstudentsinthetreatmentgroupwith studentsexcludedfromthetreatmentgroupbecausetheyshowedlimitedusepatterns(12 lowusers).Forthisanalysiswereferredtostudentsinthetreatmentgroupashigh users.Table4presentsmeanpretestscoresontheDIBELSandmeanposttestNCE 17 13.4 4.1 11.5 3.6 17.1 2.5 15.3 2.9 25.6 2.6 22.3 5.4 16.0 2.2 12.4 3.6 Treatment(N=12) Mean SD Control(N=12) Mean SD

scoresontheGatesMacGinitieforhighandlowusers.Highusersdidnotdiffer significantlyfromlowusersonpretestscores(ISF,t(36)=0.18,p=.86;LNF,t(36)=0.65,p =.52);however,ananalysisofcovarianceshowedthatthehighusers(54.2)significantly outperformedlowusers(40.6)atposttest,F(1,34)=5.18,p=.03. Table4.MeanpretestrawscoresontheDIBELSandmeanNCEscoresontheGates MacGinitieReadingTestforhighandlowusers. _______________________________________________________________________________ PretestDIBELS Mean 7.1 SD 5.1 Mean 6.8 SD 5.2 Highusers(N=26) Lowusers(N=12)

InitialSoundFluency LetterNamingFluency PosttestGatesMacGinitie NCEScore

14.2

14.0

11.1

12.8

54.2

18.0

40.6

16.3

_______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION ThisstudyexaminedthebenefitsofaCAIprogramdesignedtosupplementregular classroominstructioninanurbanpublicschoolsystem.Theprogramprovidessystematic 18

andstructuredexercisesfordevelopingphonologicalawarenessandbasicsound/symbol correspondencesinkindergartenchildren.Comparisonsweremadebetweentreatment classesreceivingthesupplementalCAIprogramandcontrolclassesreceivingthesame phonicsbasedreadingcurriculumwithoutCAIsupport.Therewerenodifferences betweentreatmentandcontrolgroupsonpretestmeasuresofpreliteracyskills. However,atposttestthetreatmentgroupsignificantlyoutperformedthecontrolgroup ontheGatesMacGinitieReadingTest.Thegreatestdiscrepancybetweengroupsatpost testoccurredforchildrenwiththelowestpretestscores.Acloserlookatposttest performanceontheGatesMacGinitierevealedthatthelargestdifferencebetweengroups wasonthesubtestmeasuringphonologicalawareness(orallanguageconcepts).This subtestrequireschildrentoidentifypictureswithnamesthatbeginorendwiththesame soundorpicturesthathaverhymingnames.Higherscoresforthetreatmentgroupon thissubtestindicatethatthelowestperformersbenefitedfromamoreintensive, systematicemphasisondevelopingphonologicalawarenessthroughtheCAIprogram.It hasbeenwellestablishedthatphonologicalawarenessisakeyprerequisiteforlater readingadvancement(e.g.,Adams,1990;Share&Stanovich,1995). Thekindergartenclassesavailableforthisstudyprovidedanexceptionalopportunityto investigatethebenefitsofaninterventionprogramincloselymatchedtreatmentand controlsettings.Pairedmorningandafternoonclassesweretaughtbythesameteacher usingthesamecurriculum.Eachteacherreportedfollowingthesamedailyroutinefor hertwoclasses.Theonlydifferencewasthatwhiletreatmentclasseswenttocomputer laboratory,controlclassesspentextratimeengagedinlanguagerelatedclassroom activities.Thistypeofdesigneliminatesmanypotentialthreatstointernalvalidityrelated toteacherandclassroomvariableswhichareoftenseeninfieldstudiesassessingthe effectivenessofsupplementaryreadingprograms(seeTroia,1999).Theuseofmatched classesprovidesassurancethatsignificantgroupdifferencesareduetotheuseofCAIin 19

thetreatmentclasses,andnottootherpotentialconfoundingvariablesthatmayhave beendiscrepantacrossgroups. Inthisstudywedrewadistinctionbetweenchildrenincludedinthetreatmentgroup becausetheyshowedsufficientusepatterns(i.e.,atleast45sessionsorapproximately16 hoursoversixmonths)andchildrenexcludedfromthetreatmentgroupbecausethey werelowusers.OthershavereportedarelationshipbetweenamountofCAItimeand readinggains(e.g.,Hecht&Close,2002).Concernsabouttimeontaskasitrelatesto readinggainshavealsobeendiscussedwithregardtononCAItreatmentstudies(Ehriet al.,2002),particularlyasitappliestolowperformers(Torgesen,Wagner,&Rashotte, 1997).Here,wefoundacleardifferenceinposttestscoresbetweenchildrenidentifiedas highusersandthosewhowerelowusers.ThisresultshowsthatanybenefitsofCAIon acquisitionofreadingskillsrequireasufficientamountofcomputertime. Thepublicschoolsystemwestudiedemployedhighlysystematic,phonicsbasedreading instructionaspartofitsgeneralcurriculum.ThisconformstotheReportoftheNational ReadingPanels(NICHD,2000)recommendationthatearly(andstruggling)readersbenefit fromasystematic,explicitapproachtoreadinginstruction.Providedwiththis curriculum,allclassesproducedmeanreadingscoreswithintheaveragerangebytheend oftheschoolyear,reflectingadequateprogressinalowSESurbanschoolsystem.We found,however,thatparticipationinthesupplementaryCAIprogramsprovidedan additionalboostthatdifferentiatedtheposttestscoresoflowperformersinthetreatment groupfromlowperformersinthecontrolgroup.Thisfindinghighlightsthefactthat wellstructuredCAIprogramscandeliverthekindofintensivepracticerequiredforlow performerstoenhancetheirreadingskills(seeWiseetal.,2000).However,notallstudies havereportedbenefitsofCAIoverandabovesolidreadinginstruction(e.g.,Patersonet al,2003).Furtherresearchisnecessarytoteaseapartthevariousfactors(student 20

characteristics,typeofreadingcurriculum,teachervariables,CAIactivities,intensityof CAIuse,etc.)thatcontributetowhetherCAIislikelytoprovideadditionalsupportfor childrenacquiringreadingskills. ItshouldbenotedthatparticipationinCAImaybebeneficialnotonlyforstruggling readersbutalsofortypicallydevelopingchildren.CAIprovidesanengagingformatfor allchildrentopracticeskillsandprogressindependentlyattheirownrate.Inconjunction withCAIprogramsdesignedforfirstgraders(seeMacarusoetal.,inpress),typically developingkindergartnerscouldadvancebeyondEarlyReadingandsystematicallybuild skillsthroughhigherlevels.Wearecurrentlyconductingresearchtoexaminethis possibility.Inaddition,utilizingCAIwithtypicallydevelopingchildrenaspartofflexible groupingsandcenteractivitieswouldallowteacherstospendextratimewithchildren whomayneedmoreindividualizedsupport. Inconclusion,thepublicschoolsystemwestudiedhasembracedtheuseofCAIaspartof itsregularreadingcurriculum.Therefore,wehadanopportunitytoinvestigatethe efficacyofCAIasanintegratedcomponentoftypicalclassroomactivitiesgivingrisetoa highlevelofecologicalvalidity(seealsoHecht&Close,2002;Patersonetal.,2003).It shouldbekeptinmind,however,thatbystudyingthebenefitsofCAIinthemidstof typicalclassroompractice,wesacrificedsomedegreeofcontroloverimplementation. Dailyalterationstoclassroomschedules(fieldtrips,assemblies,etc.)inevitablyaffected weeklyCAIusepatterns.Nonetheless,wewereabletodemonstratebenefitsofCAIfor kindergartnersintheearlystagesofreadingacquisition,particularlythosewhostarted outaslowperformersandmaintainedsufficientuseoftheprogram.

21

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thesuccessofthisprojectisadirectresultoftheeffortsoftheadministrators, kindergartenteachers,readingspecialists,technicalsupportstaff,paraprofessionals,and participatingchildrenintheReverePublicSchools.SpecialthanksgotoDr.PaulDakin, SuperintendentofSchools,andDr.GraceMarieGreeno,DirectorofLiteracyandTitleI Programs.

22

BiographicalNotes: PaulMacarusoisanassistantprofessorofpsychologyattheCommunityCollegeof RhodeIsland.HeisalsoaresearchscientistaffiliatedwithHaskinsLaboratories,New Haven,CT,andanadjunctfacultymemberintheCommunicationSciencesandDisorders programattheMGHInstituteofHealthProfessions.Hehaspublishednumerous researcharticlesintheareasofdevelopmentalandacquireddisordersofreading,writing andnumberprocessing. PamelaE.HookisanassociateprofessorintheCommunicationSciencesandDisorders programattheMGHInstituteofHealthProfessions,agraduateleveltrainingprogramin speech/languagepathologyandreading.Shehaspublishedresearcharticlesintheareas ofspokenandwrittenlanguagedisorders,andshehasservedasaconsultanttoschools systems,designedlanguageartscurricula,andconductedteachertrainingprograms.She servedasaconsultantinthedevelopmentofthecontentoftheLexiaprograms. RobertMcCabeisDirectorofResearchforLexiaLearningSystems,Inc.Heisresponsible forthecoordinationofthecompanysresearcheffortsincludingsiteselection,training, implementation,datacollection,andanalyses.Hehasledschoolbasedcommunity service,trainingandresearchprogramsforthepast14years. AdelaideWalkerisaresearchassociateatLexiaLearningSystems,Inc.Sheisinvolvedin datamanagementandconductsanalysesforLexiasresearchstudies.Sheisalsoa studentintheHarvardGraduateSchoolofEducationPrograminHumanDevelopment andPsychology.

23

REFERENCES Adams,M.J.(1990).Beginningtoread:Thinkingandlearningaboutprint.Cambridge,MA: MITPress. Ball,E.W.&Blachman,B.A.(1991).Doesphonemeawarenesstraininginkindergarten makeadifferenceinearlywordrecognitionanddevelopmentalspelling?Reading ResearchQuarterly,24,4966. Bradley,R.F.(1999).BradleyReadingandLanguageArts.Upton,MA:BradleyInstitutefor ReadingandLanguageArts. Brady,S.,Fowler,A.,&Stone,B.(1994).Trainingphonologicalawareness:Astudywith innercitykindergartenchildren.AnnalsofDyslexia,44,2659. Bus,A.G.&vanIjzendoorn,M.H.(1999).Phonologicalawarenessandearlyreading;A metaanalysisofexperimentaltrainingstudies.JournalofEducationalPsychology,91,403 414. Ehri,L.C.,Nunes,S.R.,Willows,D.M.,Schuster,B.V.,YaghoubZadeh,Z.,&Shanahan,T. (2001).Phonemicawarenessinstructionhelpschildrenlearntoread:Evidencefromthe NationalReadingPanelsmetaanalysis.ReadingResearchQuarterly,36,250287. Foster,K.C.,Erickson,G.C.,Forster,D.F.,Brinkman,D.,&Torgesen,J.K.(1994). Computeradministeredinstructioninphonologicalawareness:EvaluationoftheDaisy Questprogram.JournalofResearchandDevelopmentinEducation,27,126137. Good,R.H.&Kaminski,R.A.(2003).DynamicIndicatorsofBasicEarlyLiteracySkills,6th Edition.Longmont,CO:SoprisWestEducationalServices. Grigg,W.S.,Daane,M.C.,Jin,Y.,&Campbell,J.R.(2003).Thenationsreportcard:Reading 2002.Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics. Hatcher,P.J.,Hulme,C.,&Snowling,M.J.(2004).Explicitphonemetrainingcombined withphonicreadinginstructionhelpsyoungchildrenatriskforreadingfailure.Journalof ChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,45,338358. 24

Hecht,S.A.&Close,L.(2002).Emergentliteracyskillsandtrainingtimeuniquelypredict variabilityinresponsestophonemicawarenesstrainingindisadvantagedkindergartners. JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,82,93115. LexiaLearningSystems(2001).PhonicsBasedReadingandStrategiesforOlderStudents. Lincoln,MA:LexiaLearningSystems,Inc. LexiaLearningSystems(2003).EarlyReading.Lincoln,MA:LexiaLearningSystems,Inc. Liberman,I.Y.&Shankweiler,D.(1985).Phonologyandtheproblemsoflearningtoread andwrite.RemedialandSpecialEducation,6,817. Lundberg,I.,Frost,J.,&Petersen,O.(1988).Effectsofanextensiveprogramfor stimulatingphonologicalawarenessinpreschoolchildren.ReadingResearchQuarterly,23, 263284. MacArthur,C.A.,Ferretti,R.P.,Okolo,C.M.,&Cavalier,A.R.(2001).Technology applicationsforstudentswithliteracyproblems:Acriticalreview.TheElementarySchool Journal,101,273301. Macaruso,P.,Hook,P.E.,&McCabe,R.(inpress).Theefficacyofcomputerbased supplementaryphonicsprogramsforadvancingreadingskillsinatriskelementary students.JournalofResearchinReading. MacGinitie,W.H.,MacGinitie,R.K.,Maria,K.,&Dreyer,L.G.(2000).GatesMacGinitie ReadingTestsLevelBRFormS,Level3FormsSandT.Itasca,IL:RiversidePublishing. McFall,P.L.(2000).ScottForesmanReading.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation, Inc. Mitchell,M.J.&Fox,B.J.(2001).Theeffectsofcomputersoftwarefordeveloping phonologicalawarenessinlowprogressreaders.ReadingResearchandInstruction,40,315 332. Mioduser,D.,TurKaspa,H.,&Leitner,I.(2000).Thelearningvalueofcomputerbased instructionofearlyreadingskills.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,16,5463. 25

NationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment[NICHD].(2000).Reportof theNationalReadingPanel.Teachingchildrentoread:Anevidencebasedassessmentofthe scientificresearchliteratureonreadinganditsimplicationsforreadinginstruction.Reportsofthe subgroups[NIHPublicationNo.004754].Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrinting Office. Paterson,W.A.,Henry,J.J.,OQuin,K.,Ceprano,M.A.,&Blue,E.V.(2003)Investigating theeffectivenessofanintegratedlearningsystemonearlyemergentreaders.Reading ResearchQuarterly,38,172207. Reitsma,P.&Wesseling,R.(1998).Effectsofcomputerassistedtrainingofblendingskills inkindergartners.ScientificStudiesofReading,2,301320. Share,D.L.&Stanovich,K.E.(1995).Cognitiveprocessesinearlyreadingdevelopment: Accommodatingindividualdifferencesintoamodelofacquisition.IssuesinEducation: ContributionsfromEducationalPsychology,1,157. Snow,C.E.,Burns,M.S.,&Griffin,P.(1998).Preventingreadingdifficultiesinyoungchildren. NationalReadingCouncil.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress. Sweet,R.W.(2004).Thebigpicture:Wherewearenationallyonthereadingfrontand howwegothere.(pp.1344).InP.McCardle&V.Chhabra(Eds.),Thevoiceofevidencein readingresearch.Baltimore,MD:Brookes. Torgesen,J.K.(2004).Lessonslearnedfromresearchoninterventionsforstudentswho havedifficultylearningtoread(pp.355382).InP.McCardle&V.Chhabra(Eds.),The voiceofevidenceinreadingresearch.Baltimore,MD:Brookes. Torgesen,J.K.,Morgan,S.T.,&Davis,C.(1992).Effectsoftwotypesofphonological awarenesstrainingonwordlearninginkindergartenchildren.JournalofEducational Psychology,84,364370. Torgesen,J.K.,Wagner,R.K.,&Rashotte,C.A.(1997).Preventionandremediationof severereadingdisabilities:Keepingtheendinmind.ScientificStudiesofReading,1,217 234. 26

Torgesen,J.K.&Barker,T.A.(1995).Computersasaidsinthepreventionand remediationofreadingdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly,18,7687. Troia,G.A.(1999).Phonologicalawarenessinterventionresearch:Acriticalreviewofthe experimentalmethodology.ReadingResearchQuarterly,34,2852. vanDaal,V.H.P.&Reitsma,P.(2000).Computerassistedlearningtoreadandspell: resultsfromtwopilotstudies.JournalofResearchinReading,23,181193. Wagner,R.K.&Torgesen,J.K.(1987).Thenatureofphonologicalprocessingandits causalroleintheacquisitionofreadingskills.PsychologicalBulletin,101,192212. Weiner,S.(1994).Effectsofphonemicawarenesstrainingonlowandmiddleachieving firstgradersphonemicawarenessandreadingability.JournalofReadingBehavior,26,277 300. Wise,B.W.,Ring,J.&Olson,R.K.(2000).Individualdifferencesingainsfromcomputer assistedremedialreading.JournalofExperimentalChildPsychology,77,197235.

27