Effects of Personalized Learning on Kindergarten and First Grade

Students’ Early Literacy Skills

Haya Shamir, Kathryn Feehan and Erik Yoder

Waterford Institute, 1590 East 9400 South, Sandy, UT, 84093, U.S.A.

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), Literacy, Early Childhood.

Abstract: The Waterford Early Reading Program is a computer-assisted instruction program that ensures individualized

learning for kindergarten through second grade students. The Waterford curriculum was assigned to

kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students in a school district in South Carolina for the 2015-2016

school year. The Developmental Reading Assessment was administered to students at the end of the fall,

winter, and spring terms to assess reading skills. Analysis revealed statistically significant end of year scores

made by kindergarten students and statistically significant gains made by first grade students with high usage

of the Waterford Early Reading Program, indicating that Waterford curriculum improves early literacy skills.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a new

education law signed in December 2015, built on the

American ideal that all children across demographics

deserve an equal opportunity to education by assisting

at-risk students and students with special needs as

well as increasing access to pre-kindergarten (U.S.

Department of Education, 2016). This changes the No

Child Left Behind Act focus from standardized

testing to state-driven testing, aiming to set up all

students for success by creating useful, impactful

change to the school system (Darling-Hammond et

al., 2016). This new system of accountability was

created because the one-size-fits-all approach to

improve education was unsuccessful and outdated.

The new law was recently enacted, however, so

innovations within education still need to improve, as

the trend of average reading scores for fourth grade

students has only risen 13 points (from 208 to 221) in

the past forty years (National Assessment of

Educational Progress [NAEP], 2015). Despite policy

changes and increased funding over the decades, the

United States has significantly, but not meaningfully,

improved the reading scores of young students:

American children have not had significant changes

in literacy skills over the past forty years, meaning

that as postsecondary education is increasingly

required for entry-level jobs, workers are not

prepared for these education or training requirements

(Murnane et al., 2012). As the literacy of young

cohorts remains stagnant, our country demands

increasing literacy skills to match the increase in

higher-paying occupations. Clearly, our nation is in

need of meaningful changes in education to improve

the reading scores of elementary school students for

later school success.

Recent innovations in technology and increases in

federal funding for education have led to dramatic

increases in the tools available for teachers and

students (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

However, while technological advances have created

promising instructional tools for education, new

technology may not be closing the literacy gaps

between students, especially between students from

low- and high-income families (Biancarosa and

Griffiths, 2012). While technology has been found to

increase ease of observation and curriculum

development for teachers, teachers from high poverty

schools are using technology to send updates such as

concerns to individual parents and students much less

than teachers at low poverty schools (Gray et al.,

2010; Hoffman et al., 2015). Moreover, teachers and

school systems have been found to stress practical

reading skills but not addressing analytic, in-depth

reading skills that lead to understanding. Students

from low-income families need to have higher

literacy skills in order to keep up with the labor force

of today and to close the gap between less and more

advantaged children (Murnane et al., 2012). The

question that needs to be addressed is: how can

incorporating technology into the classroom

Shamir, H., Feehan, K. and Yoder, E.

Effects of Personalized Learning on Kindergarten and First Grade Students’ Early Literacy Skills.

DOI: 10.5220/0006245202730279

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 2, pages 273-279

ISBN: 978-989-758-240-0

273

transform literacy education to close the academic

achievement gap between lower- and higher-

achieving students (Biancarosa and Griffiths, 2012)?

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is the

presentation of different forms of educational media

material in an interactive, instructional way. While

teachers conduct large group instruction meant for

many students to learn a subject, CAI allows

individual students to take control of their learning

which increases students’ flexibility, interactivity,

and engagement (Jethro et al., 2012). According to

research of CAI in the classroom setting, early

childhood instruction using CAI can improve

mathematical performance (Aunio and Niemivirta,

2010) and literacy performance (Saine et al., 2010;

Stetter and Hughes, 2010) in comparison to a typical

public classroom setting. CAI presents material with

animation and immediate feedback, individualizing

the learning process in a way only one-to-one

teaching styles can. When implemented with fidelity,

CAI technology has been found to improve students’

abilities and to effectively teach subjects to all

populations, especially elementary school students

(National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).

Individualized educational technology programs

need to target students of all demographics, be easily

incorporated into the classroom, and be functional for

students and teachers. A recent literature review

found that CAI programs incorporated into the

classroom led to statistically significant moderate

gains in phonological awareness in early readers for

disadvantaged students (Zomer and Kay, 2016).

Among schools with diverse students, the extent and

effectiveness of technology-based literacy curriculum

use distinguishes lower- and higher-performing

elementary schools (Wilcox et al., 2015). These

findings combine to show that CAI technology

individualizes literacy curriculum for students across

demographics, narrowing the gap between students in

early literacy skills. Overall, CAI programs coupled

with traditional classroom settings increase the

interactivity and individualization of the learning

environment for each student, but further research is

needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CAI

technology on academic achievement (Vernadakis et

al., 2005).

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate

the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading

Program in improving early literacy skills of

kindergarten and first grade students. We predicted

that this CAI program will improve reading scores

when incorporated into early elementary school

programs.

2 METHODS

2.1 Participants

This study consisted of 2,148 students enrolled in a

public school district in South Carolina during the

2015-2016 school year. The majority of students in

the study are White, and approximately one-third of

the students qualify for free lunch.

For kindergarten, the experimental group

consisted of 1,004 students, and the control group

consisted of 28 students. For first grade, the

experimental group consisted of 1,064 students, and

the control group consisted of 52 students. This

analysis excluded second grade because of the low

experimental group sample size: Throughout the

2015-2016 school year, only 2 second grade students

used the Waterford Early Reading Program.

2.2 Materials

2.2.1 The Waterford Early Reading

Program (ERP)

The program offers a comprehensive, computer-

adaptive pre-reading and reading curriculum for pre-

kindergarten through second grade students. The

software presents a wide range of multimedia-based

activities in an adaptive sequence tailored to each

student’s initial placement and his or her individual

rate of growth throughout the complete reading

curriculum.

2.2.2 The Waterford Early Math and

Science Program (EMS)

The program offers a comprehensive, computer-

adaptive pre-reading and reading curriculum for pre-

kindergarten through second grade students. The

software presents a wide range of multimedia-based

activities in an adaptive sequence tailored to each

student’s initial placement and his or her individual

rate of growth throughout the complete reading

curriculum.

2.2.3 Developmental Reading Assessment

(DRA)

The DRA is a standardized reading test used to

determine a student’s instructional level in reading.

The DRA is administered individually to students by

teachers and/or literacy coaches. The test identifies

whether the student is below, meeting, or exceeding

grade level reading expectations.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

274

2.3 Procedure

Students were expected to use ERP for 30 minutes per

day, five days per week, throughout the 2015-2016

school year. The experimental group consisted of

students that used ERP for greater than or equal to

1000 minutes throughout the 2015-2016 school year,

and the control group consisted of students that used

ERP for less than or equal to or equal to 500 minutes

throughout the 2015-2016 school year. Usage was

tracked within the program and monitored weekly by

Waterford personnel, and total minutes of usage of

ERP for the school year per group was calculated.

The DRA was administered at the end of the fall,

winter, and spring terms.

Since kindergarten students were not

administered the DRA at the beginning of the 2015-

2016 year, only end of year scores were analyzed.

Additionally, due to the low number of students in the

control groups of kindergarten and first grade,

analyses of ethnicity were not conducted.

3 FINDINGS

This analysis excluded second grade because of the

low experimental group sample size: Throughout the

2015-2016 school year, only 2 second grade students

used the Waterford Early Reading Program.

Additionally, due to the low number of students in the

control groups of kindergarten and first grade,

analyses of ethnicity were not conducted.

3.1 Kindergarten

The experimental group for kindergarten (n = 1,004)

included students that used Waterford curriculum for

greater than or equal to 1,000 minutes throughout the

2015-2016 school year. The control group (n = 28)

included students that used Waterford curriculum for

less than or equal to 500 minutes throughout the

2015-2016 school year. Since kindergarten students

were not administered the DRA at the beginning of

the 2015-2016 year, only end of year scores were

analyzed.

3.1.1 Group Differences using an

Independent Samples T-Test

An independent samples t-test examining group

differences in DRA end of year scores between the

experimental group and the control group was

conducted (see Figure 1). Analysis of end of year

scores revealed a significant difference between

groups, t(1, 1030) = -2.37, p < .05, due to higher end

of year scores made by experimental students (M =

5.99) than by control students (M = 4.39). Effect size

(d = 0.45).

Figure 1: Kindergarten DRA end of year scores.

3.1.2 Group Differences using Two-Way

ANOVAs

Further analysis was conducted to examine the effects

of gender and subsidized lunch on end of year DRA

scores. Two separate two-way ANOVAs were

conducted to examine the effect of Waterford

curriculum and demographics on DRA end of year

scores (see Figure 2).

3.1.3 Gender

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of gender and Waterford curriculum on DRA

end of year scores, F(1, 1028) = 1.26, p = .261.

Simple effects analysis showed that for males,

students in the experimental group significantly

outperformed students in the control group. Females’

end of year scores in the experimental group were

slightly higher than in the control group, but the

difference was not significant.

3.1.4 Socioeconomic Status

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of subsidized lunch and Waterford curriculum

on DRA end of year scores, F(2, 1026) = 0.68, p =

.505. Simple effects analysis showed that for students

with reduced lunch, end of year scores in

Effects of Personalized Learning on Kindergarten and First Grade Students’ Early Literacy Skills

275

experimental group were higher than in the control

group, approaching significance. Students in the

experimental group with free lunch and paid lunch

scored slightly higher than the control group, but the

difference was not significant.

Figure 2: Kindergarten DRA end of year scores by

demographics.

3.2 First Grade

The experimental group for first grade (n = 1,064)

included students that used Waterford curriculum for

greater than or equal to 1000 minutes throughout the

2015-2016 school year. The control group (n = 52)

included students that used Waterford curriculum for

less than or equal to 500 minutes throughout the

2015-2016 school year.

3.2.1 Group Differences using an

Independent Samples T-Test

An independent samples t-test examining group

differences in DRA gain scores between the

experimental group and the control group was

conducted (see Figure 3). Analysis of gain scores

from DRA beginning of year scores to DRA end of

year scores revealed a significant difference, t(1,

1114) = -2.07, p < .05, between the experimental

students (M = 12.07) and the control students (M =

10.90). Effect size (d = 0.29).

Figure 3: First grade DRA gain scores.

3.2.2 Group Differences using Two-Way

ANOVAs

Further analysis was conducted to examine the effects

of gender and subsidized lunch on DRA gain scores.

Two separate two-way ANOVAs were conducted to

examine the effect of Waterford curriculum and

demographics on DRA gain scores (see Figure 4).

3.2.3 Gender

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of gender and Waterford curriculum on DRA

gain scores, F(1, 1112) = 0.91, p = .340. Simple

effects analysis showed that for males, students in the

experimental group significantly outperformed

students in the control group. Females’ gain scores in

the experimental group were slightly higher than in

the control group, but the difference was not

significant.

3.2.4 Socioeconomic Status

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of subsidized lunch and Waterford curriculum

on DRA gain scores, F(2, 1110) = 0.52, p = .594.

Simple effects analysis showed that for free lunch,

students in the experimental group significantly

outperformed students in the control group. Students

in the experimental group with reduced lunch and

paid lunch had gain scores slightly higher than the

control group, but the difference was not significant.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

276

Figure 4: First grade DRA gain scores by demographics.

3.2.5 Group Differences using an ANCOVA

An ANCOVA examining group differences in DRA

end of year scores while covarying for DRA

beginning of year scores was conducted (see Figure

5). Analysis of DRA end of year scores, while

covarying for DRA beginning of year scores,

revealed a significant difference between groups, F(1,

1113) = 9.14, p < .01, due to higher end of year scores

made by experimental students (M = 18.54) than by

control students (M = 16.87). Effect size (d = 0.18).

Figure 5: First grade DRA end of year scores.

3.2.6 Group Differences by Demographics

using ANCOVAs

Further analysis was conducted to examine the effects

of gender and subsidized lunch on DRA end of year

scores, covarying for DRA beginning of year scores.

Two separate two-way ANCOVAs were conducted to

examine the effect of Waterford curriculum and

demographics on DRA end of year scores, covarying

for beginning of year DRA scores (see Figure 6).

3.2.7 Gender

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of gender and Waterford curriculum on DRA

end of year scores, covarying for DRA beginning of

year scores, F(1, 1111) = 1.15, p = .284. Simple

effects analysis showed that for males, students in the

experimental group significantly outperformed

students in the control group. Females’ end of year

scores in the experimental group were slightly higher

than in the control group, but the difference was not

significant.

3.2.8 Socioeconomic Status

There was no significant interaction between the

effects of subsidized lunch and Waterford curriculum

on DRA end of year scores, covarying for DRA

beginning of year scores, F(2, 1109) = 0.45, p = .639.

Simple effects analysis showed that for free lunch,

students in the experimental group significantly

Figure 6: First grade DRA end of year scores by

demographics.

9,5

10,5

11,5

12,5

Female Male Free Reduced Paid

Gender Lunch

Experimental Control

Effects of Personalized Learning on Kindergarten and First Grade Students’ Early Literacy Skills

277

outperformed students in the control group. Students

in the experimental group with reduced lunch and

paid lunch had end of year scores slightly higher than

the control group, but the difference was not

significant.

4 DISCUSSION

According to ESSA, schools need to be continually

improving aspects of the education they provide for

their students, specifically through improving

curriculum for students of all demographics (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2016). The achievement gap in

literacy skills of students entering school needs to be

accounted for, or students are bound on a track to

dropping out of high school (Hernandez, 2011). One

solution to the achievement gap is adding computer-

assisted instruction technology into the classroom.

CAI technology in the classroom was found in this

study to allow children to learn at their own pace, as

found in other studies (Flewitt et al. 2014 Vernadakis

et al., 2005). In both kindergarten and first grade,

students in the experimental groups significantly

outperformed students in the control groups.

Moreover, across demographics, students in the

experimental groups scored consistently higher than

the students in the control groups.

This study also supports previous findings that

early literacy skills are improved when technology is

integrated into an existing elementary school

curriculum (Shamir et al., 2011). In the current study,

the hypothesis was supported, that students with high

usage of Waterford curriculum will have higher

literacy test scores than their control counterparts. If

the expected usage had been met by all students, the

literacy test scores of the students could have been

even greater. Additionally, this study involved only

one elementary school district, so further research can

incorporate a more diverse population to increase

generalizability of the results. Overall, these findings

indicate that computer-assisted instruction improves

literacy test scores and literacy skills when combined

with in-class curriculum.

REFERENCES

Aunio, P., & Niemivirta, M. (2010). Predicting children’s

mathematical performance in grade one by early

numeracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,

427-435. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.06.003.

Biancarosa, G., & Griffiths, G. G. (2012). Technology tools

to support reading in the digital age. The Future of

Children 22(2), 139-160. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ996196.pdf.

Darling-Hammond, L., Bae, S., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Lam,

L., Mercer, C., Podolsky, A., & Stosich, E. L. (2016).

Pathways to new accountability through the Every

Student Succeeds Act.

Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N. (2014). New

directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad.

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1-22. doi:

10.1177/1468798414533560.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of

educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009.

National Center for Education Statistics.

Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third-

Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High

School Graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Hoffman, E. S., Park, E., & Lin, M. G. (2015). Beyond

professional development: A case study of

implementing iPads in early childhood education.

Society for Information Technology & Teacher

Education International Conference, 2015(1), 2008-

2015. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1769.4244.

Jethro, O. O., Grace, A. M., & Thomas, A. K. (2012). E-

learning and its effects on teaching and learning in a

global age. International Journal of Academic

Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 203-

210.

Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy

challenges for the twenty-first century: Introducing the

issue. The Future of Children, 22(2), 3-15.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

(2015). The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=201

5136.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). The final

report of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S.

Department of Education.

Saine, N. L., Lerkkanen, M. K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A.,

& Lyytinen, H. (2010). Predicting word-level reading

fluency outcomes in three contrastive groups: Remedial

and computer-assisted remedial reading intervention,

and mainstream instruction. Learning and Individual

Differences, 20(5), 402-414. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.

06.004.

Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Shlafer, I. (2011). The effect of

activity with e-book on vocabulary and story

comprehension: A comparison between

kindergarteners at risk of learning disabilities and

typically developing kindergarteners. European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 311-322.

Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Computer-assisted

instruction to enhance the reading comprehension of

struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal

of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 5-20.

U.S. Department of Education (2016). Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/essa.

Vernadakis, N., Avgerinos, A., Tsitskari, E., &

Zachopoulou, E. (2005). The use of computer assisted

instruction in preschool education: Making teaching

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

278

meaningful. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 33(2), 99-104.

Wilcox, K. C., Lawson, H. A., & Angelis, J. (2015).

Classroom, School, and District Impacts on Diverse

Student Literacy Achievement. Teachers College

Record, 117(9), n9.

Zomer, N. R. & Kay, R. H. (2016). Technology use in early

childhood education: a review of the Literature. Journal

of Educational Informatics, 1(1), 1-2.

Effects of Personalized Learning on Kindergarten and First Grade Students’ Early Literacy Skills

279