iRead

Study: Hamilton, Gray-Adams, Chen, Puliln Gorga, McKithen, & von Glatz (2016 unpublished)

Hamilton, J., Gray-Adams, K., Chen, E., Poulin Gorga, C., McKithen, C., & von Glatz, A. (2016). iRead Impact Study: Impacts on Low Performing Students: Final Report, Condensed Version for NCII Submission. Rockville, MD: Westat. Unpublished report.
Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

iRead is a digital, foundational reading program designed to close the achievement gap early, and place all K-2 children on a predictable path to reading proficiently by Grade 3.

iRead is intended for use in grades K-2. The program is intended for use with any student at risk of academic failure. The academic areas of focus are early literacy (including print knowledge/awareness, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, early decoding abilities, spelling, fluency, and word recognitions) and language (expressive and receptive vocabulary and listening).

Where to obtain:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

125 High Street

Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-351-5000

Website: www.hmhco.com/iread

Cost: Varies based on purchase.

iRead is available as a perpetual or a subscription model. The purchase of iRead includes Student Licenses and Software, Teacher Licenses and access to the iRead Quick Start (Implementation) Webinar, and the iRead Digital Teacher Portal (which includes Downloadables, Resources, Grouping and Lesson Planning Tools, Reports and Analytics). In addition, a print Professional Guide, Teacher Implementation Guide, Technology Quick Reference book, and Classroom posters are included. Quantities and pricing are dependent on which model is purchased.

It is recommended that iRead is used with individual students, small groups of three to six students, or the whole class.

iRead takes 20 minutes per sessions with a recommended 3-5 sessions per week for 36 weeks.

The program includes a highly specified teacher’s manual.

In order to implement iRead, a school/district needs the iRead Software and licenses for teachers and students. Clients run in standard web browsers and connect to servers over HTTP or HTTPS.

iRead requires a persistent connection to a server computer hosted by the district or a HMH data center. 

While training is not required, it is highly recommended. At minimum, teachers should view the Quick Start (Implementation) Webinar that is included with the program. For additional upfront training, HMH recommends that teachers attend the full-day iRead Getting Started course described below.

The iRead Getting Started course is an interactive, full-day (approximately 6 hour), in-person session that prepares teachers to begin implementing the program with success. Topics covered include program components, research base, student software experience, teaching with routines, and managing learning using the teacher technology. During the session, users will get hands-on experience with the student software and teacher technology using a specially designed simulator.

The minimum qualifications of instructors are that they must be professionals. The program assumes that the instructor has expertise in foundational literacy.

Research-based training manuals and materials are available. 

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: Word Reading: 138 (68 program, 70 control); Word Meaning 136 (68 program, 68 control); Sentence Comprehension 129 (62 program, 67 control)

Risk Status: Grade 1 and Grade 2 students performing below the 30th percentile on the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) pretest were identified as being at risk for academic failure.

Demographics:

Grade level

PROGRAM Number

PROGRAM Percentage

CONTROL Number

CONTROL Percentage

p of chi square

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  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

 

24%

 

16%

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

15%

 

17%

 

  Hispanic

 

12%

 

10%

 

  White

 

41%

 

50%

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

47.5%

 

45.5%

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

13%

 

9%

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

20%

 

18%

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

 

 

 

 

 

Male

 

47%

 

59%

 

 

Training of Instructors: 

 

Combined: iRead treatment and comparison teacher characteristics

Teacher-level variables

iRead

Comparison

Sample size

75

63

Gender (male)

6%

6%

Age < 45

60%

79%

White

86%

82%

Black

4%

5%

Asian

8%

8%

Hispanic

6%

3%

Other Race

1%

6%

Teaching experience < 3 years

11%

30%

Master’s Degree

57%

70%

 

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?: NA

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?: Yes

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

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)?: Yes.

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: The research firm created a custom fidelity tool for the study, which was comprised of five key components, each measured by a series of indicators. These components are: equipment, classroom structure and environment, software usage, instruction, and teacher training.  Classroom fidelity was measured at the individual classroom level and aggregated to the district level, and combined sample level. Components of fidelity were gathered across the school year, with the exception of software usage, which was collected at the end of the school year.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Both districts achieved the minimum recommended level of fidelity, for four of the five components: including fidelity for equipment, classroom structure and environment, software usage, and instruction. Only one of the two districts achieved the minimum fidelity (set for this study) for teacher training. For additional detail please see iRead QED Final Report August 2016 NCII, Figures B1- B5, pages B-1 through B-3.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted  Measure

Reliability Statistics

Relevance to Program Instructional Content

Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

GRADE subtest: Word Reading (Grades1-2)

0.81 – 0.92

iRead is a digital foundational reading program designed to boost effectiveness of any core reading curricula or program. As such, iRead’s explicit instruction in foundational reading targets similar skills measured in the Phoneme Grapheme, Letter Recognition and Word Reading subtests.

Treatment and Control classrooms both received similar instruction in foundational literacy through their regular ELA curriculum.

Broader  Measure

Reliability Statistics

Relevance to Program Instructional Content

Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

GRADE subtest: Word Meaning (Grades1-2)

    0.81 – 0.92

iRead does not explicitly provide instruction related to Word Meaning and Sentence Comprehension, but the combined skills students gain in iRead may indirectly impact performance on these subtests.

Treatment and Control classrooms both received similar instruction in foundational literacy through their regular ELA curriculum.

GRADE subtest: Sentence Comprehension  (Grades1-2)

    0.81 – 0.92

iRead does not explicitly provide instruction related to Word Meaning and Sentence Comprehension, but the combined skills students gain in iRead may indirectly impact performance on these subtests.

Treatment and Control classrooms both received similar instruction in foundational literacy through their regular ELA curriculum.

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 3 Reading

Mean ES - Targeted: 0.13

Mean ES - Broader: 0.28

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading GRADE subtest: Word Reading (Grades 1-2) 0.13

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Readin GRADE subtest: Word Meaning (Grades 1-2) 0.23
Reading GRADE subtest: Sentence Comprehension (Grades 1-2) 0.33

 

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 , Small Group, (n=3-6)

Duration of Intervention: 20 minutes, 3-5 times a week, 36 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Literacy Professional, No training required

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 1 study

Hamilton, J., Gray-Adams, K., Chen, E., Poulin Gorga, C., McKithen, C., Quintanilla P., & von Glatz, A. (2016). iRead Impact Study: Final Report. Rockville, MD: Westat. Unpublished Report.