Can educational technology effectively differentiate instruction for reader profiles?

Abstract

Teachers are responsible for identifying and instructing an increasingly diverse population of student readers. Advances in educational technology may facilitate differentiated instruction. Using data from a large, population-based sample of third-grade students, we investigated what works for whom in technology-based literacy instruction. We classified 594 students into four reader subgroups or profiles based on two scores from a readily-available, commonly-used progress monitoring tool (aim-sweb©). Using this simple and accessible method, we identified profiles of readers that resemble the poor decoder, poor comprehender, mixed deficit, and typical reader subgroups found in past studies that used extensive test batteries or advanced statistics. We then employed nonparametric analyses to examine both proximal and distal outcomes across one academic year. First, we compared the relative progress of reader profiles on a technology-based reading program (Lexia® Core5® Reading). Second, we determined whether each reader profile made gains on aimsweb at the end of the year. We found that Core5 effectively differentiated online instruction and contributed to improved aimsweb performance for most reader profiles. The findings from this study help inform educational best practices for efficient identification of and effective intervention for all students.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on reading performance of second grade children in Germany

“…As it became apparent that the use of digital tools was a prerequisite for distance learning, both teachers and students became more familiar with digital learning environments. This improved the conditions for implementing approaches such as formative assessment or data-driven decision making, which largely require the proficient use of appropriate digital tools to support differentiated instruction in the classroom (e.g., Baron et al, 2019 ; Souvignier et al, 2021 ). In addition, implementing innovative instructional approaches to support at-risk students requires a commitment to professional development for teachers.…”

Measuring Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Computer-Based and Paper-Based: Examining the Mode Effect in Reading Accuracy and Reading Fluency

“…Proponents of the paper-based test mode emphasize that the execution of the assessment depends on the availability and functionality of digital devices. In research, digital test procedures are used to increase the reliability of the tests via further item parameters such as processing speed per item (e.g., [31,47]) or to support teachers in decision-making (e.g., [10,48]).…”

Educational Technology in Support of Elementary Students With Reading or Language-Based Disabilities: A Cluster Randomized Control Trial

“…Specifically, it aligns to the Simple View of Reading with sequential instruction provided in four strands related to decoding (phonological awareness, phonics, structural analysis, and automaticity/fluency) and two related to language comprehension (vocabulary and comprehension; Wilkes et al, 2020). In a statewide evaluation of Core5 use in Grade 3, Baron and team (2019) found poor decoders demonstrated increased decoding as measured by the aimsweb Reading Curriculum-Based Measure (word reading) after a year of Core5 use, while poor comprehenders saw increased aimsweb Maze test (comprehension) performance. The authors interpreted these findings as evidence that the program was successfully targeting students’ areas of greatest need per the Simple View of Reading.…”