See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373170095

Phonics Lesson Library Lessons Fall 2021- Fall 2022 Level 2 Report

Experiment Findings · December 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23058.63685

CITATIONS READS

0 71

2 authors, including:

Rachel L. Schechter
LXD Research
58 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel L. Schechter on 17 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PHONICS LESSON LIBRARY TM
&
PHONICS CHIP KIT TM

FALL 2021-FALL 2022

EFFICACY STUDY
FOLLOWING GRADE 1
Rachel L. Schechter, Ph.D. & Alicia D. Lynch, Ph.D.
December 9, 2022

LXD RESEARCH
95 PERCENT GROUP LLC
PHONICS LESSON LIBRARY TM
TM
& PHONICS CHIP KIT

EFFICACY RESEARCH
2021-2022 RESULTS - FIRST GRADE - INTERVENTION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SCHOOL DESCRIPTION

The Phonics Lesson Library (PLL) is a Tier 2 and
LOCATION: Val Verde, California
Tier 3 phonics intervention program. Aligned with
the Phonics Screener for Intervention (PSI), a GRADE: First, Tiers 2 & 3
diagnostic and progress monitoring tool used to
SIZE: 462 Students
create small groups. Students accelerate skill
growth along the Phonics Continuum by using DEMOGRAPHICS: 82% Hispanic |
Phonics Chip Kits, which allot 30 minutes of 33% ELL | 4% SPED | 5% Foster/Homeless
explicit and systematic phonics instruction.

STUDY DETAILS COMPARING RESULTS

Schools in the district were paired by Spring Tiers 2 and 3 students using the 95 Percent
2021 ELA scores and then assigned to treatment Group's PLL showed higher gains on the
and comparison groups. Schools in the CORE Phonics Survey and Acadience
treatment group used Phonics Lesson Library Reading than the comparison group on
and Phonics Chip Kit with first graders to multiple measures in first grade.
provide targeted, daily, small-group lessons for
students who were Below or Well Below While Wonders has research studies, none
Benchmark at the beginning of the year. include comparison groups. At the time of this
report, Heggerty resources lack any research
COMPARISON
LITERACY TOOKLIT studies that meet ESSA-level evidence.
GROUP Core: Wonders
Tiers 2 & 3: Heggerty and a variety of
resources Grade Tiers 2 & 3

TREATMENT
REVISED LITERACY TOOLKIT
GROUP
Core: Wonders Wonders
Tiers 2 & 3: Phonics Lesson Library
and Phonics Chip Kit
Heggerty
CORE PHONICS SURVEY &
ASSESSMENT
ACADIENCE READING
CORE Phonics Survey and Acadience PLL
Reading K-6 were conducted at the
beginning and end of the 2021-2022
school year. Acadience was also No Limited Moderate
conducted mid-year. Evidence Evidence Evidence

For more information about the Phonics Lesson Library, this

study or other products, contact [email protected]
PHONICS LESSON LIBRARY PAGE 2
2021-2022 RESULTS - FIRST GRADE - INTERVENTION

RESULTS FROM RIGOROUS STATISTICAL MODELS

Even with statistical controls, schools with
Models accounted for known PLL had higher gains to comparison schools
differences that could impact on multiple measures.
outcomes (statistical controls).
Study
Assessment Role
Outcome

Acadience Universal
Reading Screener
(Overall Reading)

CORE Phonics
Diagnostic
Survey

PLL
Similar Gains
Higher Gains

BOY TO EOY OUTCOMES FOR PLL SCHOOLS

Students in schools using the Phonics Across the year, these gains led to
Lesson Library with the Phonics Chip Kits meaningfully different EOY Benchmark
made higher gains from BOY to EOY than results for PLL schools.
the comparison group.
PLL Comparison PLL Schools
40
100 Composite Level
Comparison
26% 29% (Overall Reading)
30
75
18% At/Above
20 Below
50
65% Well Below
10
25 54%
0
Acadience CORE 0
BOY EOY BOY EOY
Composite Score Phonics Total Score
Gains Gains

For more information about the Phonics Lesson Library, this

study or other products, contact [email protected]
 PHONICS LESSON LIBRARY PAGE 3
FALL 2022 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS - FIRST GRADE - INTERVENTION

ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION
For 422 students, scores for Fall 2022 were compared to those from Fall 2021 to visualize gains over
a full school year. This additional Acadience Reading assessment period is the last opportunity to
compare student scores between schools who used the Phonics Lesson Library and those that did not.

Results from using the Phonics Lesson Library suggest students

better retain their first-grade phonics skills, entering second grade
with higher reading scores.

Rising second graders gained significantly more Comparing the Benchmark Status of students from
points on their composite score from Fall 2021 to Fall 2021 to Fall 2022 helps demonstrate how an
Fall 2022 when they used the PLL, a 21-point intervention changes students' trajectories. Skills
bump. Students using PLL also accurately identified gained and retained by students in the PLL group led
two additional nonsense words in the fluency to an additional 14 percent of students starting Fall
subtest. 2022 On/Above grade level (37% vs. 51%).

Gains on Composite Scores from Composite Benchmark Status from

Fall 2021 to Fall 2022 Fall 2021 to Fall 2022
75 100%
Average Gains in Composite Scores

+14
75%
Percent of Students

50
+21
50%

25
25%
-16

0
+2 0%
Composite Score NWF-WWR Fall '21 Fall '22 Fall '21 Fall '22
Comparison Phonics Lesson
Comparison Library
Phonics Lesson Library On/Above 1 Below 2+ Below

For more information about the Phonics Lesson Library,

this study, or other products, contact [email protected]
Phonics Lesson Library Research Study
Follow-Up Results, Rising Second Graders Fall 2022

Prepared by Rachel Schechter, Learning Experience Design (LXD) Research

Analysis conducted by Lynch Research Associates

Introduction 2
Study Program Description 3
Comparison Programs 3
Research Activities during the 2022-2023 School Year 4
Reading Assessments 4
Student Demographics 5

PLL Implementation 5
95 Percent Group Coaching Summary 5
Phonics Screener for Intervention (PSI) Implementation Description 6
How many students have received PLL? 6
Did students progress in the program as expected during 2021-2022? 6

Results for Rising Second Graders 7

Sample Descriptions 8
Analytical Approach 9
Fall 2021 - Fall 2022 Statistical Results 9

Conclusion and Future Research 10

References 12

Appendix 13
Introduction
For rst graders who are learning to read, the pandemic has led to some gaps in their education. A
report from Fall 2021 showed that compared to historical pre-pandemic averages, more rst graders are
below grade level in reading (iReady, 2021). Multiple meta-analyses have shown that systematic early
phonics instruction is most e ective when implemented before or in rst grade (National Reading
Panel, 2000; Brady, 2011; Castles et al., 2018). Indeed, in a study of students who were assigned to
receive a reading intervention for one year during either rst, second, or third grade the best year to
receive the intervention was in rst grade (Connor et al., 2013). Providing early intervention support is
known to be an important way to minimize gaps and continue spurring student learning (McIntyre et
al., 2005). Therefore, it is critical to identify the e cacy of available phonics intervention tools in order
to best support student reading.

95 Percent Group created the Phonics Lesson Library (PLL) and Phonics Chip Kit as an early phonics
intervention tool. During the 2021-2022 school year, 95 Percent Group hired LXD Research to
conduct an e cacy study of PLL and the Phonics Chip Kit implementation in a medium-sized school
district in California with a student population consisting of over 80% Hispanic students and over 25%
English Language Learners. The study used a quasi-experimental design to generate evidence of the
program’s impact that aligns with evidence standards associated with ESSA Level 2. That study
showed positive results for rst graders from Fall to Spring (LXD Research, 2022). In an e ort to
document how student achievement changes or sustains during the following year, this follow-up
study was conducted at the start of the 2022-2023 school year.

Study Program Description

In the 2021-2022 study, the Basic Phonics level of the PLL, combined with the Phonics Chip Kit, was
implemented with rst graders in four intervention schools that used Wonders as their core
curriculum. Teachers employed an initial diagnostic screener to place students into intervention groups
and used 95 Percent Group’s Phonics Screener for InterventionTM (PSI) to monitor progress. Students
who were Below or Well Below Benchmark were identi ed for intervention using Acadience Reading
K-6 and placed into lessons along the Phonics Continuum (see graphic below). The PLL supports
students who are not meeting benchmarks through comprehensive lesson plans that target skills
aligned with the Phonics Continuum. This includes learning simple letter-sound
correspondences,blending words with more complex and variable letter combinations, and using
syllabication to decode multisyllabic words.

Throughout the 2021-2022 school year, students received 30 minutes of daily intervention through a
push-in model in small groups of three to four students who had similar phonics needs. Instructors
monitored progress through alternate forms of the PSI and used this data to re-group students every
three weeks based on the lowest skill on the continuum that needs the most support. Instruction is
grounded in evidence-based instructional practices in structured literacy, following the Science of
Reading research base. Instruction is systematic, following a developmental progression from simple to
complex; explicit, introducing new skills with
direct, multisensory instruction and a gradual
release of responsibility from teacher to students;
and diagnostic, targeting to students’ speci c
skill needs as determined by frequent assessment.
Once students reached mastery of skills for their
grade level, they completed the intervention.

Comparison Programs

In the comparison schools survey conducted

during Fall 2021, most teachers (73%) responded
that they used their core curriculum, Wonders, to support Tier 2 and Tier 3 reading intervention.
One-third mentioned using Heggerty Phonemic Awareness resources (36%). Other products included
but were not limited to: Imagine Learning (44%), Heggerty Phonemic Awareness (44%), Heggerty
Bridge the Gap (22%), as well as the core curriculum Journeys (39%). Nearly all of these programs
describe their materials as based in the Science of Reading and represent a relatively high bar as a
comparison to the 95 Percent Group programs, although few of these programs are able to provide
evidence supporting the e ectiveness of the program for rst graders (Table 1). Comparison schools
implemented intervention in a variety of ways, usually pulling students out for thirty minutes for Tier
3 and using small-group instruction during the reading block for Tier 2. Note, during the 2022-2023
school year, these comparison schools will be using the PLL as well.

Table 1. ESSA-Level Evidence on Comparison School Programs for First Grade

Product Evidence for All Evidence for Tiers

Students 2-3

Wonders Limited None

Heggerty Phonemic Awareness & Bridge the None None

Gap
Research Activities during the 2022-2023 School Year

For the follow-up study, the schools conducted AcadienceⓇ Reading K-6 with all students at the
beginning of the 2022-2023 school year, before any intervention lessons were provided to students.
This report is the nal opportunity to evaluate the impact of the 2021-2022 intervention for rst
graders, now comparing them as rising second graders by focusing on the gains from Fall 2021 to Fall
2022 on Acadience Reading.

Reading Assessments

Acadience Reading K-6 assessments were administered by a special assessment team (not classroom
teachers) in Fall 2021, January 2022, May 2022, and Fall 2022. As a set of curriculum-based measures,
Acadience Reading assesses student development as a reader. Designed for universal screening and
benchmarking to determine the appropriate supports for each student, Acadience is administered
three times per year in the fall, winter, and spring. Assessments are administered observationally in a
one-on-one setting and take between 3 and 11 minutes per student to complete. Scores include
standardized scale scores and on-grade achievement-level placements. First grade Acadience Reading
subtests are listed in Table 2, along with the skills they assess and the benchmark goals for the times of
year they are administered (the measures administered vary by time of year based on expected skill
development). Note that the Letter Naming Fluency measure does not have benchmark goals because
it is an indicator of risk rather than an indicator of a basic early literacy skill. At each administration
period, subtest scores are weighted and combined into a Composite Score, which is an overall indicator
of reading ability.

Table 2. Acadience Reading Subtests, Skill Coverage in First and Second Grade

Subtest Indicators of These Early Literacy Skills

Letter Naming Fluency Indicator of Risk

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Phonemic Awareness

Nonsense Word Fluency: Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) The Alphabetic Principle and Basic Phonics

Nonsense Word Fluency: Whole Words Read (WWR) The Alphabetic Principle and Basic Phonics

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF): Words Correct Accurate and Fluent Reading of Connected Text

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF): Accuracy Advanced Phonics and Word Attack Skills;
Accurate and Fluent Reading of Connected Text

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF): Retell Reading Comprehension

Composite Overall Estimate of Reading Ability

Student Demographics
Student demographics that may be related to outcome measures were collected, including: school,
district, gender, grade, race/ethnicity, age, English Language Learner status, economic disadvantage
status (the likely proxy is an indicator of whether a student quali es for free or reduced-price meals
[FRM]), foster or homeless status, migrant status, and special education status.

PLL Implementation
95 Percent Group Coaching Summary

In Fall 2021, training to support rst-grade teachers in the treatment group was provided before school
started. Consultants from the 95 Percent Group provided guidance on how to use the assessments to
place intervention students in initial groups. The use of the PSI began with Cycle 2, and the PLL was
used during intervention time. With each cycle, teachers created student groups to focus on speci c
Phonics skills. If a group of rst graders needed phonological awareness lessons before starting the
PLL, those lessons were made available to the teachers. Over time, students would advance through the
95 Percent Group Phonics Continuum. Consultants were available to support schools’ literacy coaches
and teachers to anwer questions three times (Fall 2021, Winter 2022, and Spring 2022). Follow-up
support is also being provided during the 2022-2023 school year.

Phonics Screener for Intervention (PSI) Implementation Description

Teachers completed the PSI every three weeks as part of the intervention. The results of these screeners
informed student groupings and identi ed the target skill for that cycle’s lesson. This section of the
report summarizes the number of students who have been identi ed and served by literacy
intervention. Cycle 1 is not included below because the schools used the CORE phonics survey instead
of the PSI to eliminate redundant testing.

How many students have received PLL?

The number of students grouped for intervention during each cycle between Fall 2021 and Spring
2022 is displayed below (Table 3). All the PSI results were shared through an aggregate report provided
to the research team, so it was not possible to follow individual students or connect PSI data to
Acadience data in this study. We learned from the instructional coaches that all schools were fully
implementing the program by Cycle 3.

Table 3. Number of Students in Each Cycle by Study

Cycle Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of 118 242 287 275 190 172 148 176

Students
Did students progress in the program as expected during 2021-2022?
Most students started the Fall 2021 school year working on the initial skills designated on the skills
progression for each program. While evidence of students advancing through the program becomes
clearer by Cycle 5, many are behind the expected progression (Figure 1). Conversations with
consultants revealed that it is typical for districts that just begin implementing the products to gain
familiarity with the type of instruction and data grouping model. As students show mastery in all the
skills, they “place out” and no longer receive phonics intervention. Starting in Cycle 6, the total
number of students reduce and less than 25% of students advance categories each week. While it
cannot be seen in this data visualization, most students are moving forward in each cycle, even though
they are still behind.

Figure 1. Number of Students per Skill by Cycle

The PLL is a highly explicit, scripted program that includes multimodal learning experiences and
opportunities for students via the Phonics Chip Kit and requires teachers to provide students with
direct feedback as they work. Research with on other 95 Percent Group materials has shown that it
takes some time for teachers to master lesson delivery and that lessons may take longer to provide until
they become more familiar with the approach and format (Schechter & Lynch, 2022). Furthermore,
research from the National Council on Teacher Quality (Drake & Walsh, 2020) has shown that only
68% of teacher preparation programs covered phonics instruction in 2020, while in 2013, only 53% of
programs covered phonics. While progress in teacher preparation has been made, many teachers
currently in the eld are unprepared to provide explicit phonics instruction without additional
professional development. Thus, teachers in the treatment group may be learning how to teach the
skills in the PLL as they are also adjusting to using a new program within a new intervention model.
With continued use of the program and coaching, it is expected that teachers will become more
familiar with delivering the material, so students will advance more quickly through the program.
Results for Rising Second Graders
Similar to other research reports conducted around the 2020 pandemic, this study is invesitating
student achievement looking at a Fall to Fall timeframe. Since these students were rst graders during
the 2021-2022 school year and second graders at the time of this Fall 2022 start-of-year testing period,
they will be referred to as “rising second graders” for the remainder of this paper.

Sample Descriptions

Because this program is an intervention program, this report focuses on students who scored Below or
Well Below Benchmark in Acadience Reading in Fall 2021. A total of 442 rising second graders ( rst
graders from 2021-2022) had beginning-of-year data for both years. Using a quasi-experimental design
to examine the e ects of the 95 Percent Group’s PLL, a four schools used the walk-to-intervention
program (treatment) and four schools did not (comparison). Of these students, 235 were in the
treatment group and 207 were in the comparison group (see Table 4). Among the 479 students who
had complete data from Fall 2021, 37 students did not have data available in Fall 2022, signaling an
attrition rate of approximately 8%. This attrition was equally likely to occur in the treatment and
comparison groups (𝝌2=0.05, p =.83).

Table 4. Sample sizes at Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 by treatment and comparison group status

Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Matched Sample

Grade School
# of Schools # of Students # of Students # of Students
Level Group
Rising Treatment 4 254 235 235
Second Comparison 4 225 207 207
grade Total 8 479 442 442

We employed Chi-Square analyses to compare students in the treatment and comparison groups in
regard to gender, special education status (SPED), English Language Learner (ELL), Hispanic
race/ethnicity and rates of Foster/Homelessness. Results suggested there were no statistically
meaningful di erences between the treatment and comparison groups in regard to gender, ELL,
Hispanic race/ethnicity and rates of Foster/Homelessness. However, students in the comparison group
were more likely to receive special education services compared to treatment students (𝝌2=7.90, p
=.005; see Table 5).

Table 5. Sample Descriptives for Treatment and Comparison groups by Study

Group Male SPED ELL Hispanic Foster/

Grade
 Homelessness

Comparison 52% 6% 30% 80% 5%

Rising Second
Grade Treatment 52% 1% 39% 85% 5%

Within the sample of 442 students who had both Fall 21 and Fall 22 data available, we found no
statistically signi cant di erences in Fall 21 composite scores in the treatment versus comparison group
(t=-0.41, p=.68). Table 6 displays the average Fall 21 scores for students who had Fall 21 and Fall 22
scores.

Table 6. Sample of Students with Fall 21 and Fall 22 Composite Scores by group

Number of Fall 21 E ect Size

Grade Condition SD Signi cance
Students Average Cohen's d
Comparison 207 65.46 33.51
Rising Second
p=.68 .04
Grade
Treatment 235 66.71 31.10

Analytical Approach

Three level hierarchical linear regression models (HLMs) with time (level 1) nested within students
(level 2) nested with schools (level 3) were employed to examine growth in composite and subscale
scores. All models contained a series of covariates including gender (“female”; 1=female, 0=male),
Hispanic ethnicity (“hisp”; 1= Hispanic, 0=Not Hispanic), ELL status (“ELL”; 1=ELL, 0=non-ELL),
SPED status (“sp”; 1=SPED, 0=non-SPED), an indicator of fostering/homelessness (“foshom”; 1= in
foster care or homeless, 0=not in foster care or homeless), an indicator of time (“Time”; 1=Fall 21,
2=Fall 22), an indicator of whether the student was in the treatment or comparison group
(“intervention”; 1=Treatment, 0=comparison), and an interaction between time and group calculated
as the product of Time*group (“Tigr”).

We explored the main e ects of the treatment group compared to the comparison group by
considering the signi cance of the interaction between time and group (“Tigr”). A signi cant
interaction term would suggest that the slope (i.e., growth) in composite or subscale score is di erent
for the treatment versus comparison groups. All analyses were conducted separately by grade using the
statistical software package R 3.6.2.

Fall 2021 - Fall 2022 Statistical Results

We examined growth in the overall reading score, the Composite score, as well as all of the subtests that
were available for both time periods: Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) scores: Correct Letter Sounds
(CLS) and Whole Words Read (WWR). Because the scores were highly positively skewed counts for
NWF-WWR, we elected to use a poisson distribution to examine changes in scores overtime. There
was a signi cant e ect of treatment on composite (B=21.28, p=.002, f2=.02) scores and NWF-WWR
(IRR=0.50, p<.001, f2=.06) scores (see Table 7 and Figure 2). In both cases, students in the treatment
group demonstrated more growth in scores than students in the comparison group. There was not a
signi cant e ect of treatment on NWF-CLS scores, suggesting that students in the treatment and
comparison group demonstrated similar growth. Complete output for each model can be found in the
Appendix.

Table 7. HLM Results for Students Below or Well Below Benchmark at Fall 2021

Test School Group Fall 21 Fall 22 Statistically Di erent?

Composite Scores Wonders + Variety 74.13 113.1 Yes, they are di erent. Treatment
group saw signi cantly more growth
Wonders + PLL 73.9 134.14 from Fall 2021 to Fall 2022.

Nonsense Word Wonders + Variety 0.30 5.81 Yes, they are di erent. Treatment
Fluency - Whole Words group saw signi cantly more growth
Read Wonders + PLL from Fall 2021 to Fall 2022.
0.86 8.50
Acadience Subtests NWF -CLS showed similar growth for both groups.
Figure 2. Students in the treatment group demonstrated significantly more growth in Composite scores and
NWF-WWR scores than students in the comparison group. In response, the PLL schools also saw a higher
proportion of students On or Above Benchmark at the start of second grade.

Conclusion and Future Research

The Phonics Lesson Library and Phonics Chip Kit set is an intensive, highly scripted, and multimodal
literacy toolkit. These new routines for explicitly teaching phonics may require an adjustment period
for teachers to become pro cient with them. In addition, changing the model of intervention in a
school from a pull-out to a walk-to-intervention model takes many months to adopt and become
routine. It is encouraging to see that despite these challenges, students’ overall reading and phonics
scores improved across the year. They sustained their learning over the summer to outperform students
in the comparison group that were not using the PLL the following year.

Future research that follows these students through the rest of second grade and into third grade could
help educators understand the long-term impact of the walk-to-intervention model and the use of
high-quality phonics instructional materials. It would be also helpful to understand if students who
received explicit phonological awareness instruction in kindergarten would see increased bene ts from
an explicit phonics program. Studies to investigate these questions are planned to help both program
developers and teachers better understand how to support all students learning to read.
 References
Brady, S. A. (2011). E cacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes. Explaining individual
differences in reading: Theory and evidence, 69-96. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-08968-004

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice
to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100618772271

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Crowe, E. C., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2013).
A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating e ects of individualized
literacy instruction on students’ reading from rst through third grade. Psychological Science, 24(8),
1408-1419. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612472204

iReady (2021). Understanding Student Learning: Insights from Fall 2021. [Research Brief].
Curriculum Associate, LLC.
https://www.curriculumassociates.com/research-and-e cacy/un nished-learning-research

McIntyre, E., Jones, D., Powers, S., Newsome, F., Petrosko, J., Powell, R., & Bright, K. (2005).
Supplemental instruction in early reading: Does it matter for struggling readers? The Journal of
Educational Research, 99(2), 99-107.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/JOER.99.2.99-108

National Reading Panel. (April, 2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of
the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/ les/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

Schechter, R. L. & Lynch, A. D. (2022). 95 Phonics Core Program: 2021-2022, grades K-2 e cacy
study. Learning Experience Design (LXD) Research.
https://lxdresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/95-PCP_-Level-1-E cacy-Report-Spring-202
2-new.pdf
Appendix
● Composite score: (B=21.29, p=.002) - signi cant di erences between treatment and
comparison group

● CLS score: (B=3.09, p=.22) - no signi cant di erences between treatment and
comparison group

● WWR score: (IRR=0.50, p<.001) - signi cant di erences between treatment and
comparison group
Composite Score
CLS
WWR
E ect Sizes Based on T-Tests

In the table below we report e ect sizes (Cohen’s d) resulting from dependent samples t-test that
compared growth in composite scores in the treatment and comparison groups.

T-tests were run for Rising Second Graders

Average di erence in
Number of Composite between E ect Size
Condition SD Signi cance
students Fall 2021 and Fall Cohen's d
2022
Treatment 235 60.62 69.83
p=.001 .31
Comparison 207 38.41 74.50

Change in Benchmark Status

The di erence in scores are evident in how students changed their benchmark status from year to year.
Number of
Grade Condition Well Below Below On/Above
Students
Treatment 235 186 49 0
Fall 2021
Comparison 207 157 50 0
Treatment 235 91 24 120
Fall 2022
Comparison 207 114 16 77
 LXD Research is an independent research
firm that specializes in evaluating
educational programs to support
accelerated learning.
Learn more at www.lxdresearch.com

For additional information about

95Percent Group contact us at
847-499-8200 or [email protected]

View publication stats