|
|
Research
Eighteen studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Earobics®. One study (Cognitive Concepts, 2003) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards. The other study (Valliath, 2002) was a quasi-experimental design that met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 16 studies did not meet WWC evidence screens.
Met evidence standards
Cognitive Concepts (2003) conducted a randomized controlled trial of elementary school students in Los Angeles, California. Nineteen teachers identified students in Kindergarten through third grade with reading difficulties. Students were pretested, matched, and then randomly divided into two groups. In all, 39 students used Earobics® in addition to Open Court, their regular reading curriculum, and 35 students in the comparison group used only Open Court.
Met evidence standards with reservations
Valliath (2002) is a quasi-experimental study of first-grade students from three elementary public schools in a high-achieving school district in Chicago, Illinois. Ten teachers each identified three children with the lowest reading ability within their respective classrooms. Students were pretested, matched, and divided into two similar groups. In the analysis sample, 15 students used six exercises of the Earobics® software and 15 students in the comparison group used math software.
Extent of evidence
The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations. 4
The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Earobics® to be small for alphabetics and fluency. No studies that met WWC evidence standard with or without reservations addressed comprehension or general reading achievement.
