Lexia Reading Core5 (formerly Lexia Reading)

Study: Schechter, Macaruso, Kazakoff, & Brooke (2015)

Schechter, R., Macaruso, P., Kazakoff, E.R., & Brooke, E. (2015). Exploration of a blended learning approach to reading instruction for low SES students in early elementary grades. Computers in the Schools, 32(3-4), 183-200.

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:  83 (45 program, 38 control)

Risk Status: The school was identified as having students that were at risk for academic failure and was targeted for use of the intervention due to the poor performance on state reading tests. For example, in 2012 the percent of students who scored as Proficient or Advanced on the 3rd and 5th grade reading tests were 30% and 32% respectively.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Cox Index

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

24

53%

18

47%

0.15

  Grade 2

21

47%

20

53%

0.15

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

4

9%

5

13%

0.25

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

40

89%

31

82%

0.35

  White

1

2%

2

5%

0.57

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

44

98%

35

92%

0.88

  No subsidized lunch

1

2%

3

8%

00.88

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

2

4%

0

0%

 

  Not identified with a disability

43

96%

38

100%

 

ELL status

  English language learner

14

31%

7

18%

0.43

  Not English language learner

31

69%

31

82%

0.43

Gender

Female

22

49%

24

63%

0.35

Male

23

51%

14

37%

0.35

Training of Instructors: Teachers in the treatment and control classes had comparable qualifications. Three teachers have master degrees in education (one treatment, two control) and one teacher has a Bachelor of Science degree. The two treatment teachers had six and 12 years of teaching experience, and the two control teachers had nine and 15 years of teaching experience. Teachers took part in a half-day Core5 orientation session prior to implementation where they were trained in best practices for integrating the online learning and offline instructional materials of Core5 into their classroom instruction. Each treatment classroom had six computers and students used the online program as a center activity following a rotating schedule. Teachers were instructed to have students use the online program in accordance with recommended minutes (20 to 100 per week, depending on risk) based on the Prescriptions of Intensity indicated in myLexia.com. Teachers received a teacher training guide that they could refer back to at any time. In addition, all staff members had direct contact information for the research coordinator, as well as the Lexia Customer Support team to support them with any questions or issues that came up, available Monday-Friday 8am-6pm EST.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

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

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?: Yes.

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? Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1? No.

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: As part of ongoing monitoring, two members of the research team visited the treatment classes in February 2013 to observe students using the online program. During the session, twelve students were observed in each classroom. Independent observations were made at two time points in a session. In addition to observations and data analysis, interviews were conducted to assess use of Core5 as part of classroom instruction. In addition to observation and teacher interviews, the Core5 online component tracks the number of sessions completed for each student (number of sessions and the length of sessions).

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: The observations agreed upon by both raters were as follows: 15 cases in which students were engaged with the program, four cases in which students were seated but not engaged, and two cases in which students were not seated. Raters disagreed on three cases, where students were seated but it was unclear if they were engaged with the program. For the first grade class, there was 88% (21/24) agreement across time points. For the second grade class there was 100% (24/24) agreement that all students were engaged with the program. Interviews revealed that both teachers of the treatment classrooms reported that the online program was a key center activity and they used the Lexia Lessons when students were struggling with specific skills in the online program. The first grade treatment teacher said she printed out lessons (with directions) for parents to use at home. The paper and pencil tasks (Skill Builders) were used as morning activities in the first grade class and as homework for second graders. The second grade teacher reported that when all students had mastered a skill in the online activities, she used that information to direct her whole class instruction to other skill areas. Computer logs indicated that students showed strong use of Core5s online program: their average login time was 85 minutes per week. Looking across all student sessions, the minimum and maximum times were 28 and 203 minutes per week, respectively. These strong use patterns resulted in over 90% of students meeting usage recommendations for at least three months and 62% met usage recommendations for five or more months.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Data Unavailable

Targeted  Measure

Reliability Statistics

Relevance to Program Instructional Content

Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

Vocabulary Domain: Word Reading

This is a norm-referenced assessment — raw scores from each of the subtests can be converted to stanine scores. Composite and total test raw scores can be converted to stanine scores, standard scores, percentiles, normal curve equivalencies, and grade equivalencies. 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

The program teaches and allows practice for matching spoken words with written words.

The LEAD21 program addresses literacy-based skills (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, language acquisition, comprehension, and writing) and other essential 21st century skills (e.g., communication and collaboration).  Curriculum units rotate through various themes in conjunction with the larger areas of Humanities, Science, and Social Studies.  Readings assigned in each grade link multiple topics with a mixture of nonfiction and fiction texts. LEAD21 provides Theme Readers and Differentiated Readers in paper and ebook format which can be used with interactive whiteboards. Each of the skills covered in the subtests are covered by this curriculum. 


Vocabulary Domain:

Word Meaning/Vocabulary

The program teaches and allows practice for matching written words with pictures.

Comprehension Domain:

Sentence Comprehension
 

The program teaches and allows practice for reading a sentence with a word missing, and then deciding which word would best complete the sentence.

Comprehension Domain:

Passage Comprehension

The program teaches and allows practice for reading a passage of text and responding to multiple-choice comprehension questions (both explicit and implicit).

 

Broader Measure

Score type and range of measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program instructional content

None

     

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 3 Reading

Mean ES - Targeted: 0.29

Mean ES - Broader: Data Unavailable

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

Reading

Total Standard Score

0.38

Reading

Vocabulary Standard Score

0.08

Reading

Comprehension Standard Score

0.42

Broader Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

 

N/A

 

 

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: Yes

Disaggregated Targeted Measures: Students who were identified by the school as English Language Learners

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

Reading

Total Standard Score

0.46

Reading

Vocabulary Standard Score

0.22

Reading

Comprehension Standard Score

0.53

Broader Measures

Construct

Measure

Effect Size

 

N/A

 

 

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

 

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Individual, Small Group

Duration of Intervention: 20-30 minutes, 1-5 times per week, 25-30 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 1-4 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.