Impact of the Lexia® Core5® Reading Program on Students with Reading and Language-Based Disabilities

• In Event: The Newest Trick in the Book: Current Directions in Research on Literacy and Media/Technology

Abstract

Introduction:
Only 12% of students with disabilities meet Department of Education elementary reading proficiency criteria (NAEP, 2019), and students with disabilities are 3x less likely to graduate high school than their general education peers (Horowitz et al., 2017). Intervening and providing this population with high quality reading instruction is of utmost importance.

Experts have suggested education technology could effectively address these learning difficulties (Reid et al., 2013). However, most programs targeting youth with disabilities are not based on sound learning science (Dawson et al., 2016). There have been a small number of evaluations of promising edtech solutions, but they suffered from methodological flaws (Kim et al., 2017).

The present randomized controlled trial assessed whether the Lexia® Core5® Reading blended learning program (Core5) could support children with reading and language-based disabilities. Core5 is a structured literacy program that includes a series of self-paced online activities that students complete independently and complementary, teacher-led offline resources (e.g., close reads).

Method:
Partnering with a single school district, we randomly assigned three schools (65 students) to a Core5 treatment group, and two schools (50 students) to a business as usual control group.

Students were in grades K-5 and were receiving special education support for reading difficulties. Eighty-one students had IEP designations of “Specific Learning Disability” (SLD). Additionally, 38 students had the designation “Speech or Language Impairment” (SLI). Twenty-two (22) had the designation “Developmental Delay” (DD). Finally, 26 had more than one IEP designation (23 SLD and SLI; 3 SLD and DD).

The intervention began in October and continued through early May. At pretest and posttest, participants completed standardized measures of general reading ability (which included comprehension tasks) (MAP Growth Reading) and oral reading fluency (easyCBM). To assess implementation fidelity, researchers surveyed educators and conducted classroom observations.

Results:
Treatment students used Core5 for 24.39 weeks, with 59.94 minutes of online work per week. Implementation fidelity measures revealed low use of Core5’s teacher-led offline resources.

At posttest, treatment students scored significantly higher on general reading ability (adjusted M = 192.36) than control students (adjusted M = 188.65), t(103), = 2.24, p = .027, 𝛈2 = .05, Cohen’s d = .23. Differences between conditions on oral reading fluency were non-significant.

Discussion:
Given this study’s randomized design, it is highly likely the positive general reading outcomes in the treatment group were attributable to Core5. Core5 addressed multiple areas of reading in a systematic, leveled, and multimodal fashion - features that prior research suggests promote learning for this student population (Centre of Excellence, 2017; Gorgen et al., 2020).

The non-significant oral reading effect may be caused by the lack of connected-text reading in the digital component of Core5. Connected-text reading is known to improve oral reading fluency (National Reading Panel, 2000). It is possible that effects for this outcome would have been greater had educators better leveraged Core5’s offline resources, which contained more connected-text reading.

Nonetheless, the positive finding for general reading ability suggests that scientifically-based edtech programs like Core5 can serve as effective supplements for an important at-risk population.

Authors

• Lisa B. Hurwitz, Newsela
  Presenting Author

• Kirk P. Vanacore, Lexia Learning, a Rosetta Stone company
  Non-Presenting Author