Lexia Reading Core5 (formerly Lexia Reading)

Study: Macaruso & Rodman (2011)

Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for the development of early literacy skills in young children. Reading Psychology, 32, 172-196.

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

Overview: Lexia Reading Core5 (Core5) is designed as a user-centered, interactive, and collaborative model of personalized learning and is appropriate for accelerating reading skills development for students of all abilities in Pre-K to Grade 5. Students begin by taking an Auto Placement assessment which assigns them to the appropriate start level in the program’s scope and sequence. Students then progress through the program levels at their own pace. Teachers and school staff monitor the implementation through dashboards on the myLexia website.

Alignment to Standards: Core5 is closely aligned to most rigorous state and national standards, including the Common Core State Standards for Reading (Foundational Skills, Reading Literature, and Reading Informational Text) as well as many Writing, Language, and Speaking and Listening standards.

Scope & Sequence: Core5’s scope and sequence provides balanced skill development for all five strands of the “Essential Elements of Scientific Reading Instruction” as identified by the National Reading Panel (2000) — Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, and Comprehension. In addition, a sixth strand in Core5 targeting “Structural Word Analysis” helps form the bridge from decoding skills to advanced vocabulary and comprehension. 

Core5 is used by nearly 8,000 individual sites across all 50 states, Washington DC, and an additional 30+ countries including Canada, Australia, Great Britain, South Korea, and New Zealand. As of November 2015, over 1.5 million unique students used Core5.

The Core5 online activities are accessible online through an internet browser or through the Core5 app for iPad or Android tablets. Students can work on Core5 in school, at home, in extended-day programs, or libraries and other community centers — anywhere there is internet access and a browser.

Students use the online program for 20–30 minutes per session, 1–5 times per week, for 25–30 weeks.

For struggling students, the online prescription is a minimum of 60 minutes/week for K-3 students and 80 minutes/week for grades 4–5. Students spend an additional 40–80 minutes a week engaging with offline program components (teacher-directed Lessons and Instructional Connections, as well as independent/partner Skill Builders).

Access to assessment data is available to teachers and administrators in real time through an internet browser or through the myLexia app for the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and Apple Watch. Teachers are notified by web-based reports or email when students require support or intervention.

Where to Obtain:
Lexia Learning Systems

300 Baker Avenue Suite 320

Concord, MA 01742

Phone #: 978-405-6200

Web Site: www.lexialearning.com

Cost: There are two ways to buy Core5 – individual student licenses or a site license (unlimited number of students at that site). Individual licenses costs between $30-40 a year per student, depending on the number of licenses purchased. A site license for a school that has 500 students would be $17 per student for a single-year license. As a subscription service, a one-year renewal is at the base rate, and multi-year renewals will reflect discount. Although purchasing training is not required, a launch training and two follow-up trainings per year are recommended. These are available in person (price may vary based on the needs of the school) or via webinar at different price points. E-learning modules are also available – nearly all of training videos are available for free through the program’s admin portal, myLexia.com.

The Core5 program requires a web-enabled device, such as a desktop computer, laptop, or tablet (7 inches or more — IOS or Android). The online component is conducted by each student independently, with one device. Implementation monitoring through myLexia can be accessed through a web browser on any device or through our IOS app, myLexia (versions for iPad, iPhone, and Apple Watch).

Instructional and supplemental materials require printing.Offline instructional experiences may require pedagogical materials commonly found in elementary school classrooms.

Core5 includes an extensive online resource library of interactive professional development videos, documentation, Lexia Lessons, Lexia Instructional Connections, and Lexia Skill Builders embedded into the administrative component of the program.

Lexia offers Implementation Support Services that includes trainings in person, via webinar, and through e-learning course modules. A full support package includes an Implementation Manager that consults with and assists district and school leadership throughout the year. Activities may include: creating an implementation plan, professional learning events, reviewing implementation milestones, data coaching and analyses, assistance in developing sustainable models and staff expertise, and assisting with seasonal account maintenance activities.

Additionally, teachers can access Training On Demand, a robust series of training modules that are available anytime and anywhere.  These interactive modules cover a wide range of topics such as the Core5 Scope and Sequence, Navigating within a Core5 Activity, and Student Reports in myLexia. Designed for teachers and administrators with no prior experience using Core5, teachers can explore modules at their own pace, can interact and engage with content, and can test their knowledge with interactive quizzes at the end of each module.

Our customer support has online resources that are available 24/7 as well as live support via a toll-free number Monday through Friday 8am–6pm EST, except for holidays.

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: 66 students (47 program, 19 control)

Risk Status: The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation, Level K (GRADE) was administered to treatment and control students as a pretest in October/November of 2006 and as a post-test in May/June of 2007. Any student who had a pretest Total Test standard score on the GRADE of 85 or below (i.e., at least one standard deviation below the normed mean of 100) was identified as a low performer.

Demographics:

  Program Control p of chi square
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Grade level
  Kindergarten 47 100% 19 100%  
  Grade 1          
  Grade 2          
  Grade 3          
  Grade 4          
  Grade 5          
  Grade 6          
  Grade 7          
  Grade 8          
  Grade 9          
  Grade 10          
  Grade 11          
  Grade 12          
Mean Age          
Race-ethnicity
  African-American 3 6%      
  American Indian          
  Asian/Pacific Islander 7 15% 1 5%  
  Hispanic 23 50% 7 37%  
  White 14 30% 11 58%  
  Other          
Socioeconomic status
  Subsidized lunch 42 89% 11 58%  
  No subsidized lunch 5 11% 8 58%  
Disability status
  Speech-language impairments          
  Learning disabilities          
  Behavior disorders          
  Mental retardation          
  Other (SPED Status)          
  Not identified with a disability 47 100% 19 100%  
ELL status
  English language learner 17 36% 6 32%  
  Not English language learner 30 64% 13 68%  
Gender
  Female 25 53% 7 37%  
  Male 22 47% 12 63%  

Training of Instructors: The kindergarten teachers assigned to the treatment classes had previous experience with implementation of the software.

Design: Unconvincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: No.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Yes.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Not applicable.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? No.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: No.

Was there attrition bias1? Yes.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: No.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: Unconvincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Teachers were instructed to have students use the program 2-3 times per week, each session lasting 15- 20 minutes. The software also tracks sessions completed for each student (number of session and the length of sessions).

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Students in the treatment group were only included in the analyses if they demonstrated adequate use of the CAI program, with a minimum use criterion of 600 minutes (i.e., at least 40 15-minute sessions).

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE)

Score type and range of measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program instructional content

GRADE, Level K – Total Test Score

Standard scores

Reliability coefficients for alternate form and test-retest were in the 0.90 range. Concurrent and predictive validity was assessed using a variety of other standardized reading assessments (e.g. TerraNova, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, California Achievement Test, etc.) (http://www.sedl.org/cgi-bin/mysql/rad.cgi?searchid=217)

Includes sections Phonological Awareness and Early Literacy Skills

Phonological Awareness Domain

Raw scores

Includes sub-sections Sound Matching and Rhyming

Domain Sub-Score: Sound Matching

Raw scores

The program teaches and allows practice for students to match sounds to pictures of words with that sound.

Domain Sub-Score: Rhyming

Raw scores

The program teaches and allows practice for students to select a picture of a word that rhymes with a target word.

Early Literacy Skills Domain Score

Raw scores

Same as above.

Includes sub-sections Letter Recognition and Same/Different Words

Domain Sub-Score: Letter Recognition

Raw scores

The program teaches and allows practice for students to recognize letters by their name.

Domain Sub-Score: Same/different Words

Raw scores

The program teaches and allows practice for students to identify words that are the same or different from what they hear.

Listening Comprehension Domain Score

Raw scores

Same as above.

The program teaches and allows practice for students to understand the meaning of a sentence.

Phoneme-Grapheme
Correspondence Domain Score

Raw scores

Same as above.

The program teaches and allows practice for students to identify letters that match the sound from the beginning or end of a word.

Word Reading Domain Score

Raw scores

Same as above.

The program teaches and allows practice for students to recognize both sight words and decodable words.


 

Broader Measure

Score type and range of measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program instructional content

GRADE, Level K, Early Literacy Skills Section Sub-Score: Print Awareness

Raw scores

Same as above.

The program teaches and allows practice for students to recognize elements of print, such as question marks and capital letters.

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 6 Prereading, 5 Reading

Mean ES - Targeted: 0.49*

Mean ES - Broader: -0.28

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Prereading Phonological Awareness 0.02
Prereading Letter Recognition 0.35
Prereading Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence 0.53
Prereading Sound Matching 0.01
Prereading Rhyming 0.03
Prereading Early Literacy Skills 0.13
Reading GRADE, Level K - Total Test 0.51
Reading Same/different Words 2.14***
Reading Listening Comp 0.44
Reading Word Reading 0.69*

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading Print Awareness -0.28

 

Key
*      p ≤ 0.05
**    p ≤ 0.01
***  p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Individual

Duration of Intervention: 15-20 minutes, 2-3 times per week, 12 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 1-8 hours of training

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: WWC & E-ESSA

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Beginning Readers Protocol

Effectiveness: Lexia Reading was found to have potentially positive effects on alphabetics, no discernible effects on fluency, potentially positive effects on comprehension, and no discernible effects on general reading achievement.

Studies Reviewed: 3 studies meet standards out of 4 studies total

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: Two studies, both in urban Massachusetts districts, evaluated Lexia in comparison to control groups. Outcomes were positive, but not significant at the school level. There were significant effects at the student level, however, qualifying Lexia for the ESSA “Promising” category.

Number of Studies: 2

Average Effect Size: 0.31

Full Report

 

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 3 studies

Gale, D. (2006). The effect of computer-delivered phonological awareness training on the early literacy skills of students identified as at-risk for reading failure. Retrieved May, 2008 from the University of South Florida website: http://purl.fcla.edu/usf/dc/et/SFE0001531.
 

Macaruso, P. & Rodman, A. (2011). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 301-315.
 

McMurray, S. (2013). An evaluation of the use of Lexia Reading software with children in Year 3, Northern Ireland (6‐to 7‐year olds). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs13(1), 15-25.