You are here:

Putting computerized instruction to the test: a randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program
ARTICLE

,

Economics of Education Review Volume 23, Number 4, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Although schools across the country are investing heavily in computers in the classroom, there is surprisingly little evidence that they actually improve student achievement. In this paper, we present results from a randomized study of a well-defined use of computers in schools: a popular instructional computer program, known as "Fast ForWord", which is designed to improve language and reading skills. We assess the impact of the program on students having difficulty learning to read using four different measures of language and reading ability. Our estimates suggest that while use of the computer program may improve some aspects of students’ language skills, it does not appear that these gains translate into a broader measure of language acquisition or into actual readings skills.

Citation

Rouse, C.E. & Krueger, A.B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: a randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 323-338. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 22, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ730375

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning . The Economic Journal, 112, pp. 735-765.
  2. Begley, S., & Check, E. (2000). Rewiring your gray matter . Newsweek, January 1, p. 63.
  3. Boozer, M., Krueger, A.B., & Wolkon, S. (1992). Race and school quality since Brown vs. Board of Education . Brookings papers on economic activity: Microeconomics, pp. 269-326.
  4. Borman, G.D., & Rachuba, L.T. (2001). Evaluation of the Scientific Learning Corporation’s Fast ForWord computer-based training program in the Baltimore city public schools. A Report Prepared for the Abell Foundation, August.
  5. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—third edition—Examiner’s manual. (1995). The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.
  6. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—third edition—Technical manual. (1995). The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.
  7. Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Early test scores, socioeconomic status, school quality and future outcomes . Research in Labor Economics, 20, pp. 103-132.
  8. Goolsbee, A., & Guryan, J. (2002). The impact of Internet subsidies in public schools. NBER working paper no. 9090, August.
  9. Kirkpatrick, H., & Cuban, L. (1998). Computers make kids smarter—right? . Technos Quarterly, 70(2).
  10. Krueger, A.B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions . Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), pp. 497-532.
  11. Macaruso, P., & Hook, P.E. (2001). Auditory processing: Evaluation of Fast ForWord for children with dyslexia . Perspectives, 27(3), pp. 5-8.
  12. Merzenich, M.M., Jenkins, W.M., Johnston, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S.L., & Tallal, P. (1996). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training . Science, 271(5), pp. 77-81.
  13. Miller, S.L., Merzenich, M.M., Tallal, P., DeVivo, K., LaRossa, K., Linn, N., (1999). Fast ForWord training in children with low reading performance . Nederlandse vereniging voor lopopedie en foniatrie: 1999 jaarcongres auditieve vaardigheden en spraak-taal.
  14. Nagarajan, S., Mahncke, H., Salz, T., Tallal, P., Roberts, T., & Merzenich, M. (1999). Cortical auditory signal processing in poor readers . Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 96, pp. 6483-6488.
  15. Reading Edge—Educator’s guide 1999. (1999). Scientific Language Corporation. Berkeley, CA.
  16. Rouse, C.E. (1997). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental Choice Program, NBER Working Paper Number 5964.
  17. Scientific Learning Corporation. (2002). 2001 Annual report. Oakland, CA. March.
  18. Sum, A. (1999). Literacy in the labor force: Results from the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  19. Tallal, P., Miller, S.L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S.S., (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech . Science, 271(5), pp. 81-84.
  20. Temple, E., Poldrack, R.A., Protopapas, A., Nagarajan, S., Salz, T., Tallal, P., (2000). Disruption of the neural response to rapid acoustic stimuli in dyslexia: Evidence from functional MRI . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition, 97(25), pp. 13907-13912.
  21. Temple, E., Deutsch, G.K., Poldrack, R.A., Miller, S.L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M.M., (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(5), pp. 2860-2865.
  22. Turner, S., & Pearson, D.W. (1999). Fast ForWord language intervention program: Four case studies . Tejas: Texas Journal of Audiology and Speech Pathology, 13, pp. 23-31.
  23. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The nation’s report card: Fourth grade reading highlights, 2000, Washington, DC.
  24. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References