You are here:

Computer-Assisted Instruction in Early Literacy for African American, Economically Disadvantaged Children PROCEEDING

, , , Waterford Research Institute, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This study explores the efficacy of the Waterford Early Reading program (ERP) for teaching kindergarten and first grade students’ early reading concepts. Students attended 3 elementary schools in Alabama. The treatment group used the software program whereas the control group did not use the software. Analyses revealed a significant treatment effect for kindergarten and first grade students. These results indicate that the use of a computerized adaptive software program such as ERP could have a big impact on students’ reading gains.


Shamir, H., Feehan, K. & Yoder, E. (2016). Computer-Assisted Instruction in Early Literacy for African American, Economically Disadvantaged Children. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 125-132). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 18, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Barnett, W.S. (2010). Universal and targeted approaches to preschool education in the United States. International Journal of ChildCare and Education Policy, 4(1), 1-12.
  2. Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M.E. & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instructions. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 101-130.
  3. Cassady, J.C. & Smith, L.L. (2003). The impact of a reading-focused integrated learning system on phonological awareness in kindergarten. The Journal of Literacy Research, 35(4), 947-964.
  4. Cassady, J.C. & Smith, L.L. (2005). The impact of a structured integrated learning system on first grade students’ reading gains. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21(4), 361-376.
  5. Chubb, J., & Clark, C. (2013). The new state achievement gap: How federal waivers could make it worse—or better. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
  6. Dee, T., & Jacob, B.A. (2010). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2010(2), 149-194.
  7. Fish, A.M., Li, X., McCarrick, K., Butler, S.T., Stanton, B., Brumitt, G.A., Bhavnagri, N.P., Holtrop, T., & Partridge, T. (2008). Early childhood computer experience and cognitive development among urban low-income preschoolers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 97-113.
  8. Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American educator, 27(1), 4-9.
  9. Hecht, S.A. & Close, L. (2002). Emergent literacy skills and training time uniquely predict variability in responses to phonemic awareness training in disadvantaged kindergartners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82(2), 93-115.
  10. Hutinger, P., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2005). Disseminating and replicating an effective emerging literacy technology curriculum: A final report. Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood Education.
  11. Hutinger, P.L., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2006). Establishing and maintaining an early childhood emergent literacy technology curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 39-54.
  12. Lonigan, C.J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B.M., Cantor, B.G., Anthony, J.L., & Goldstein, H. (2003). A computer-assisted instruction phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at-risk for reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(4), 248-262.
  13. MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M., & Cavalier, A.R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 273-301.
  14. Macaruso, P., Hook, P.E. And 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.
  15. Macaruso, P. & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 266-287.
  16. Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for the development of early literacy skills in young children. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 172-196.
  17. Mitchell, M.J. & Fox, B.J. (2001). The effects of computer software for developing phonological awareness in low-progress readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 40(4), 315-332.
  18. Park, O. & Lee, J. (2007). Adaptive Instructional Systems. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 651-684. Retrieved from Pfost, M., Hattie, J., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2013). Individual Differences in Reading Development: A Review of 25 Years of Empirical Research on Matthew Effects in Reading. Review of Educational Research, 0034654313509492.
  19. Powers, P. & Price-Johnson, C. (2007). Evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in Kindergarten, 2005-06. Online Submission. Retrieved from Savage, R.S., Abrami, P., Hipps, G., and Deault, L. (2009). A randomized controlled trial study of the ABRACADABRA reading intervention program in grade 1. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 590-604.
  20. Sparks, R., Patton, J., & Murdoch, A. (2013). Early reading success and its relationship to reading achievement and reading volume: Replication of ‘10 years later’. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 189-211.
  21. Wise, B.W., Ring, J., & Olson, R.K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 197-235.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact