Lexia Reading

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

Lexia Reading supports reading development in the five areas of instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (2000) and is aligned with Common Core State Standards and core reading curricula. Lexia Reading delivers an RTI modeled reading program by combining four instructional components:

  1. Lexia Reading Software; provides individualized, adaptive learning of discrete reading skills, advancing students to higher levels as they demonstrate proficiency,
  2. MyLexia online reporting interface; uses an embedded assessment technology to provide educators with actionable, norm-referenced performance data that identifies struggling students for individual or small group instruction,
  3. Lexia Lessons; provide teacher-led, direct skill instruction to help educators address specific skill gaps,
  4. Lexia Skill Builders; provide paper-based independent practice opportunities to reinforce skills already mastered.

The MyLexia online administration component ofthe program is specifically designed to identify and report students’ percent chance of reaching their grade-level, end-of-year benchmark; thereby gauging student progress to identify the “Some Risk” and “High Risk” students. The program includes various features that complement the RTI model. For example, Lexia Reading prescribes the level of instructional intensity needed to increase the student’s probability of reaching the end-of-year benchmark. This monthly measure (based on a normed national sample) includes the number of minutes the student should use the software, as well as recommendations for targeted instruction (Lexia Lessons).

Lexia Reading supports foundational reading development for students of all abilities pre-K through grade 4, and accelerates reading development for at-risk students in grades 4–12.

Published research and reviews show the program’s effectiveness with at-risk students, English language learners, and students with learning disabilities.

The academic area of focus is reading (including phonological awareness, phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary).

Lexia Reading is currently used in more than 14,000 schools across the U.S.

Because the program is web-enabled, Lexia Learning maintains a database to track school accounts and monitor student usage and progress. These data help Lexia Learning support the fidelity of implementation through training and consultative support.

Where to Obtain:
Lexia Learning Systems
200 Baker Avenue
Concord, MA 01742
Phone #: 978-405-6200
Web Site: www.lexialearning.com

Cost: Lexia Learning Systems sells Lexia Reading licenses to schools and districts, not individual users. The average annual cost per student is less than $30.

Additional Cost Information:
The cost of the licenses includes access to the student software, embedded assessment and online reporting tools, hosting of data, unlimited technical support (phone), virtual phone/web-based training, product updates and enhancements, as well as embedded instructional materials (Lexia Lessons and Skill Builders). 

 

Lexia Reading software is designed for independent use by individual students. Lexia Lessons can be delivered in small groups or one-on-one. The size of small groups is decided by the teacher, based on the software’s ability to identify students requiring instruction in discrete skills.

Student use varies in minutes per session, sessions per week, and number of sessions per year. Based on each student’s grade and risk level, the software prescribes the level of instructional intensity needed to increase the student’s probability of reaching the end-of-year benchmark. This monthly measure includes the number of minutes the student should use the software, as well as recommendations for targeted instruction. Teachers can monitor each student’s usage trends to ensure they receive the appropriate amount of time on the software.

Student software use is individually recommended for as little as 20-30 minutes per week for low-risk students and up to 100 minutes per week for older, high-risk students.

The program includes detailed, descriptive teacher manuals.

The required technology for implementing the program is a web-enabled computer and internet access.

In 2012, Lexia Learning will release Lexia Reading for the iPad providing the full functionality of the current Lexia Reading program.

Lexia Learning provides an initial launch training of approximately two hours, as well as subsequent trainings for administrators and teachers.

The Lexia Reading software allows students to work independently, requiring minimal supervision.

Lexia Lessons and Skill Builders are designed to be used by teachers or paraprofessionals, regardless of their level of classroom experience.

The MyLexia online reporting interface is simple and intuitive, limiting the level of data coaching required.

Lexia Reading is designed to minimize the level of training required for successful implementation in an RTI environment.

Training manuals and materials are embedded in the MyLexia interface and available on-demand.

Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support through access to unlimited phone support, live and recorded webinars and training videos, and from a designated Lexia Learning representative.

Participants: 
Participants content: 

Sample size: 167 students (83 program, 84 control)

Risk Status: Students were defined as “at risk” by their teachers given their performance on a number of classroom activities (e.g. picture/object vocabulary, recognizes letters). These students were also Title 1 eligible. (Note: Title I services refer to additional academic support provided to low-achieving children.)

Demographics:

  Program Control p of chi square
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Grade level
  Kindergarten          
  Grade 1 83 100% 84 100%  
  Grade 2          
  Grade 3          
  Grade 4          
  Grade 5          
  Grade 6          
  Grade 7          
  Grade 8          
  Grade 9          
  Grade 10          
  Grade 11          
  Grade 12          
Mean Age          
Race-ethnicity
  African-American          
  American Indian          
  Asian/Pacific Islander          
  Hispanic          
  White          
  Other          
Socioeconomic status
  Subsidized lunch 15 18% 15 18%  
  No subsidized lunch 68 82% 70 82%  
Disability status
  Speech-language impairments          
  Learning disabilities          
  Behavior disorders          
  Mental retardation          
  Other (SPED Status)          
  Not identified with a disability 83 100% 84 100%  
ELL status
  English language learner 1 1% 1 1%  
  Not English language learner 82 99% 83 99%  
Gender
  Female 37 45% 43 52%  
  Male 46 55% 41 48%  

Training of Instructors: Teachers in the treatment classes averaged 19 years of teaching experience and teaching in the control group averaged 18 years of teaching experience. Teachers in the treatment classes and computer laboratory staff members took part in orientation and training sessions for software implementation.

Design: 
Design content: 

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: No.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1? No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: No.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: 
Fidelity of Implementation content: 

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: The software tracks sessions and records skill units completed for each student. Teachers reported between 30-60 minutes per day of phonics instruction.

Fidelity of implementation was maintained through weekly class and laboratory observations by the research team, monthly teacher interviews, and data on student use collected electronically.  The failure of a few students to meet required use patterns was due to illness, truancy and the general issue of transience typical of students in a low SES urban school district.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: The mean number of sessions completed was 64, with a range: 37–91 sessions. The program is organized by units. The mean number of units completed was 140 (range 45-324).

Lexia Reading has established 45 sessions over the school year as a minimum use criterion for effective implementation. This criterion is based on research findings comparing reading gains of students who have or have not shown adequate use (see Macaruso & Hook, 2007).  Of the 83 students in the treatment group, 93% met the 45 session criterion.

Measures Targeted: 
Measures Broader: 
Measures content: 
Targeted Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
Not applicable      


 

Broader Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
GMRT Letter-sound correspondences for initial consonants, final consonants, vowels, and consonant clusters Raw scores and a normal curve equivalent (NCE) Kuder-Richardson 20 for PRE and R levels are in the 0.90s. (http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/commarts/readassess.pdf) The program teaches letter-sound correspondences.
Recognizing basic story words Same as above Same as above The program includes sight word instruction.

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 
1 Prereading
2 Reading
Number of Outcome Measures content: 

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not applicable  

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading GMRT Overall Score – Title 1 students 0.62
Reading Basic Story Words – Title 1 students 0.44
Prereading Letter-correspondences – Title 1 students 0.67

 

Key
*        p ≤ .05
**      p ≤ .01
***    p ≤ .001
–       Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u       Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†       Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Effect Size content: 

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not applicable  

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading GMRT Overall Score – Title 1 students 0.62
Reading Basic Story Words – Title 1 students 0.44
Prereading Letter-correspondences – Title 1 students 0.67

 

Key
*        p ≤ .05
**      p ≤ .01
***    p ≤ .001
–       Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u       Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†       Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Disaggregared Data for Demographic Subgroups: 
Yes
Disaggregared Data for Low Percentile: 
No
Administration Group Size: 
Individual
Duration of Intervention: 
30-60 minutes
2-3 times per week
24 weeks
Minimum Interventionist Requirements: 
Paraprofessional
1-8 hours of training
Additional Research Studies on the Intervention: 
11 studies
Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: 
Yes – Intervention Reviewed
Study: 
Macaruso, Hook, & McCabe (2006)
Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
Targeted Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
Mean ES - Broader: 
0.58
New: 
Updated: 
Broader Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
Broader Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
Disaggregared Data for Demographic Subgroups Content: 

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not applicable  

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading GMRT Overall Score – Title 1 students 0.62
Reading Basic Story Words – Title 1 students 0.44
Prereading Letter-correspondences – Title 1 students 0.67

 

Key
*        p ≤ .05
**      p ≤ .01
***    p ≤ .001
–       Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u       Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†       Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse Content: 

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Year Reviewed: 2009

Effectiveness: Lexia Reading was found to have potentially positive effects on alphabetic, no discernible effects on fluency, potentially positive effects on comprehension, and no discernible effects on general reading achievement.

Studies Reviewed:

  • Total = 3
  • Meets Standards = 2
  • Meets w/ Reservations = 1

Full Report

 

Additional Research (*denotes studies reviewed by NCII)

Reviewed by WWC:

Meets WWC Evidence Standards:

*Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 162–172.

Additional source:
Macaruso, P., Hook, P., & McCabe, R. (2003). The efficacy of Lexia skills-based software for improving reading comprehension. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from Lexia Learning website: http://www.lexialearning.com.au/library/source/research/revere_030912.pdf.

Gale, D. (2006). The effect of computer-delivered phonological awareness training on the early literacy skills of students identified as at-risk for reading failure. Retrieved May, 2008 from the University of South Florida website: http://purl.fcla.edu/usf/dc/et/SFE0001531.

Meets WWC Evidence Standards with Reservations:

*Macaruso, P., & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 266–287.  

Does Not Meet WWC Evidence Standards:

Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2008). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction on early literacy skills in young children. Manuscript submitted for publication in Reading and Writing Quarterly. (Kindergarten study).

Ineligible for WWC Review:

Lankutis, T. (2001). Reaching the struggling reader. Technology & Learning, 21(10), 24.

Macaruso, P., & Hook, P. (2007). Computer assisted instruction: Successful only with proper implementation. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Summer, 43–46.

Macaruso, P., Hook, P., McCabe, R., Rodman, A., & Walker, A. (2007, September). Closing the reading achievement gap. Concord, MA: Lexia Learning Systems, Inc.

Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2008). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction on early literacy skills in young children. Manuscript submitted for publication in Reading and Writing Quarterly. (Preschool study).

MacLaughlin, A. I. (2003). Will a computer based phonics practice program result in higher reading and writing skills for kindergarten children? Unpublished master’s thesis, Salem State College, Salem, MA.   

Ruth, R. (1997). Remedial reading instruction using the Accelerated Learning Program. Retrieved February 27, 2009 from Lexia Learning website: http://www.lexialearning.com.au/library/source/research/robert_ruth_1997.pdf.

Stevens, D. A. (2000, March) Leveraging technology to improve test scores: A case study of low-income Hispanic students. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference on Learning with Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Not Reviewed by NCII or WWC:

Macaruso, P. & Rodman, A. (2011). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 301-315.

McMurray, S. (in press). An evaluation of the use of Lexia Reading Software with children in Year 3, N. Ireland (6-7 year olds).  Journal of Research in Special Education Needs.

Effect sizes are available for measures that were equivalent on the pretest.: 
Subject: 
Reading
Grade Level: 
Elementary
Middle School
Citation: 
Macaruso, P., Hook, P.E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 162-172.
Study Type: 
Group Design
Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): 
Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 
3 studies
Other Research: Ineligible for NCII Review: 
0 studies
Positive and Substantively Meaningful Results: 
Null Bubble