Robert McCabe, Chief Education Officer. Company Confidential A National Consensus

Robert McCabe, Chief Education Officer

Company Confidential

A National Consensus

Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children

Catherine E. Snow, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, editors

National Research Council, 1998

Reading Research Summary


15 Years Earlier!Lexia’s Company History

• Founded in 1984 by a Team of Reading and Technology Specialists

• Funded by two Federal Grants from National Institute of Health (NICHD)

• Pioneered the Use of Technology to Deliver Explicit, Systematic Skills Based Instruction for Reading


SUPPORT - Support core reading programs for on-level and advanced students through accelerated independent practice

REMEDIATE - Remediate reading disabilities by providing extended practice to develop foundational reading strategies

TIER I

TIERIII

TIER II

PREVENT – Prevent reading failure by strengthening reading skills for students who need additional practice in essential reading skills

Builds Mastery of Essential Reading Skills


Beneficial Attributes of Computers

Identified in Published Literature Lexia

Individualized Supplementary Instruction

Intrinsically Motivating

Explicit Training

Fidelity of Treatment

Accurate Word Reading

Speeds up Skill Acquisition

Extends Teacher Resources


• Systematic, Structured and Sequential• Addresses the five Components of Reading • Correlated to Core Reading Curricula,

Selected State Standards and DIBELS• Intrinsically Motivating with Immediate

Feedback and Reinforcement• Focused Learning Environment to Maximize

Time on Task • Differentiated, Age-Appropriate,

Independent Practice with Targeted Review

Student Content



• Collects Information on Each Student's Performance

• Identifies Strengths and Weaknesses Based on Student Performance

• Provides Feedback and Hints Along the Way

• Supplies Additional Practice when Necessary

“Intelligent Branching”


• Web-enabled – Access from Anywhere

• Reports Identify and Group Students for Targeted Instruction

• Ongoing Progress Monitoring Capabilities

• Management Access for Class, School, and District

• Home-to-school Connection


Lexia and Age Appropriate Design


UNIT LEVEL

PROGRAM

ACTIVITY





Lexia Product Research


Research Requirements

• Treatment and control groups

• Pre- and post-testing using standardized measures (Gates MacGinitie, Woodcock-Johnson III, GRADE)

• Equated groups on pretest scores

• Sufficient implementation over school year


Kindergarten Study

• Lexia Early Reading

• 3 treatment, 3 control classes

• Matched classes – same teacher, classroom, and curriculum


Kindergarten Results

All children Low performers

Mea

n N

CE

Sco

re

20

30

40

50

60

Lexia Control

Mea

n N

CE

Sco

re

20

30

40

50

60

Lexia Control


Peer-Reviewed Publication

Kindergarten findings appear in Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly v29 (3), May/June

2008“The Efficacy of Computer-Assisted Instruction for Advancing Literacy Skills in Kindergarten

Children”


First Grade Study


• 83 students in treatment group, 84 students in control group

• Subanalysis – Title I (15 students in treatment group, 15 students in control group)


First Grade Results

Title I Students Lexia Students

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pretest Post-test

Me

an

NC

E S

co

res

Lexia Title IControl Title I

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pretest Post-test

Mea

n N

CE

Sco

res

Lexia Title ILexia non-Title I



Title 1 findings appear in the Journal of Research in Reading v29 (2), May 2006

“The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students”


Second Grade Study


• Students in two groups (41 students in each group) matched on pretest scores

Mea

n N

CE

Sco

res

45

50

55

60

65

Pretest Post-test

Lexia

Control

Decoding Subtest

Findings published in International Dyslexia Association’s Perspectives on Language and Literacy Summer 2007 issue


Third Grade Study


• Lower performers only

• 46 students in treatment group, 65 students in control group

Mean

NC

E S

co

res

35

40

45

50

55

Pretest Post-test

Lexia

Control

Reading Comprehension Subtest

Findings published in International Dyslexia Association’s Perspectives on Language and Literacy Summer 2007 issue


Journal Publication

2nd and 3rd grade findings appear in the Perspectives on Language and Literacy v33 (3), 2007

“Computer Assisted Instruction: Successful only with Proper Implementation”


Lexia Middle School Study

• Remedial reading classes: 47 subjects (31 SPED students)

• Identical instruction

• Treatment Students averaged 50 sessions using Lexia SOS

• Woodcock Johnson III assessment tool


“There is no comprehension strategy that compensates for difficulty reading words accurately & fluently.”

Torgesen 2003


Middle School ResultsMiddle School Students

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Basic Reading Cluster Gains

WJII

I M

ean

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

res

Lexia

Control



Middle School Findings have been accepted for publication in theEuropean Journal of Special Needs Education


Data Driven Results

• Lexia contributed to reading gains in grades Pre K - 3 and Middle School

• Gains most evident for low performers

• Results are consistent with other published data

• Teachers support the use of the programs


“High Benefit Students”

Low Pre-test Scores

+ High Use Sessions

High Gains Scores


Ongoing Research

1. Manuscripts in Preparation: Pre-K, Kindergarten and Sixth Grade Data Collected in 2006-2007 School Year

2. Large-Scale Study in Ennis, TX 2007-2008

• K (N=425)

• 1st (N=252)

• 2nd (N=257)

• Subgroups of Bilingual Students


Kindergarten ELLTotal Test Standard Score Gains

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Total Test Gains

GR

AD

E T

ota

l Tes

t S

tan

dar

d S

core

s

ELL Lexia

ELL Control


Kindergarten ELL Word Reading Adjusted PostTest Scores

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Word Reading

GR

AD

E R

aw S

core

s

ELL Lexia

ELL Control

Phonological Awareness Gains Scores

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Phonological Aw areness

GR

AD

E T

est

Raw

Sco

res

ELL Lexia

ELL Control


First Grade “High-Benefit Students”

1st Grade High Use with Control

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Total Test Gains

GR

AD

E T

est

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

res

Lexia High Use

Control

1st Grade High Use w ith Low Use

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Total Test Gains

GR

AD

E T

est

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

res

Lexia High Use

Lexia Low Use

*non-SPED, non-ELL students with pretest Total Test scores below 100 and high Lexia Use

Total Test Gains


First Grade “High-Benefit Students”

1st Grade High Use with Control

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Reading Comprehension

GR

AD

E T

est

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

res

Lexia High Use

Control

*non-SPED, non-ELL students with pretest Total Test scores below 100 and high Lexia Use

1st Grade High Use with Low Use

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Reading Comprehension

GR

AD

E T

est

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

res

Lexia High Use

Lexia Low Use

Reading Comprehension Gains


Best Practices and Implementation Tips*

*You have the details in your handout


Program Assignment and Leveling

One Program: Early Reading, Primary Reading, Strategies for Older Students

One Level: Assign based upon Age and Skill


Frequency and Duration of Use

• 2 to 5 sessions per week

• Kindergarten: Everybody Benefits

• Grades 1-3: Performance drives implementation

• Grades 4-12: Intensive remediation/ELL

• Meet research-based thresholds (45+ sessions)


Rate of Progress

Primary Reading Levels 1 - 3

GRADEAVG. MIN to COMPLETE

# of 20-MIN

SESSIONS# of WEEKS

Kindergarten

820 41 14

1st Grade 578 29 10

2nd Grade 495 25 9


Scheduling Use

• Time on Task

• Lexia and the Language Arts block

• Tiered Implementation

• Classroom versus Computer Lab Use


Supplementing a Strong Core Curriculum

A comprehensive program, emphasizingexplicit and systematic instruction in

phonemic awareness, phonics,vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension


Lexia In The News


“When students learn through student-centered online technology, assessment

and individualized assistance can be interactive and woven into the instruction

rather than tacked on at the end of the process. Software makers can also use the feedback loop to learn how to improve their

products for different kinds of learners.

Lexia Learning Systems, a reading-software company in Concord, Mass., provides an

example of the power of this approach. The company's product, Lexia Reading, assesses a

student's understanding constantly. If the student demonstrates mastery, he moves

forward. If he has not understood a lesson, the software harks back. Some students just need more opportunities to understand and practice

the lesson in different ways.”


“Lexia Reading provides practice in the five

components of reading, and the design of these materials is

consistent with current research suggesting that

students who struggle with reading benefit from systematic

and explicit practice opportunities.”


Questions?

Documents

Robert McCabe, Chief Education Officer. Company Confidential A National Consensus