





































Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Computer-Assisted 
Instruction on the Reading Achievement of First Graders 

 
Tracy Renae Hudson  

Linda Reeves  
*Rebecca M. Giles  
Lauren R. Brannan  

 
University of South Alabama 

 
*Corresponding Author:          Rebecca M. Giles, Ph.D.  

rgiles@southalabama.edu    
University of South Alabama  

College of Education and Professional Studies Leadership 
and Teacher Education  

UCOM Suite 3100  
75 University Blvd., N.  

Mobile, Alabama  36688-0002  
(251) 380-2899 office 
(251) 455-3708 cell 
(251) 380-2758 fax 

 
Abstract 

 
With reading proficiently by the end of third grade as a common goal, many school districts are exploring 
options to enhance early reading instruction. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the 
supplemental, computer-assisted reading program i-Ready would significantly affect first grade students’ 
reading achievement. Participants (n=159) were first graders at two elementary schools - treatment (n= 
82) and comparison n= 77). An independent samples t-test was used to compare the mid-year reading 
achievement scores of the treatment and comparison groups and found no statistically significant 
differences between groups. Following 10 weeks of twice-weekly 45-minute sessions of i-Ready reading 
instruction for the treatment group, an independent samples t-test showed that no statistically significant 
differences in reading achievement existed between the treatment and comparison groups. Several 
possibilities for this finding are discussed. 
 
Keywords: reading, first grade, computer-assisted instruction 

 
 

Page 49 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Literacy competency may be 
regarded as the cornerstone of 
academic success. Both educators and 
parents recognize the longstanding 
effects of literacy failure on the 
development of self-confidence and 
motivation to learn, which adversely 
impacts overall academic 
performance (Armbruster et al., 2001; 
National Reading Panel, 2001). With 
the transition from learning to read to 
reading to learn that occurs around 
fourth grade, ensuring that children 
are successful readers by the end of 
third grade is of utmost importance 
(Fiester, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2011). 
In fact, seventy-five percent of 
students who are poor readers in third 
grade will remain poor readers in high 
school (Fiester, 2010). Further, 
relationships have been found 
between third grade reading deficits 
and ninth grade course failures 
(Dorsey, 2015). This need to ensure 
early reading success has led many 
school districts to explore options for 
enhancing early reading instruction.  

 
 
Beginning Reading Instruction 
 

Reading instruction and the 
acquisition of reading skills have 
been popular topics of interest for 
over 50 years, and the research is both 
prevalent and varied. Despite 
multiple theories and various models 
which offer frameworks for 
approaching reading instruction, 
learning to read continues to present a 
struggle for many students. The 

National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000), 
viewed as quite conservative in its 
numbers, reported an estimated 20% 
of children encounter reading 
difficulties before third grade, while 
Reynolds, Wheldall, and Madelaine 
(2011) supports Adams’ (1990) 
broader claim that at least a third of 
the population has or is experiencing 
literacy acquisition difficulties.   

Gaps in reading achievement 
have been consistently identified in 
comparing performance between 
White and Black students, English 
language learners and native English 
speakers, and disabled and 
nondisabled populations of students. 
As a result, there is a pervasive need 
to address the disparate reading 
abilities among these different groups 
(Coffee et al., 2014). The creation of 
the NRP in 1997 was one of the first 
organized approaches to evaluating 
the research on reading inclusive of 
“alphabetic, fluency, comprehension, 
teacher education, and computer 
technology” (Coffee et al., 2014, p. 
82). The NRP cited five essential 
components for reading instruction; 
known as the “Big 5,” these 
components are phonemic awareness, 
phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and 
comprehension (National Reading 
Panel, 2000). A noted limitation in 
the NRP report, however, was that its 
scope included reading for school-age 
children, and it did not address the 
research on early childhood.  

In consideration of NRP’s 
limitation, the National Early 
Literacy Panel (NELP) was convened 

Page 50 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

in 2002 with the purpose of 
synthesizing the existing research on 
the development of literacy skills in 
early childhood. NELP identified six 
fundamental emergent skills. These 
skills consist of alphabet knowledge, 
phonological awareness, automaticity 
in naming letters and numbers, 
automaticity in naming objects or 
colors, writing letters or names, and 
phonological memory. NELP also 
identified five categories of 
intervention: code-focused 
intervention which involved 
establishing the relationship between 
the letters in written words with the 
sounds in spoken words, shared 
reading interventions, parent and 
home programs, pre-school and 
kindergarten programs, and language 
enhancement interventions (National 
Reading Panel, 2000; National Early 
Literacy Report, 2008).  

Both the NRP and NELP 
substantiate the scientific basis for 
instructional targets and intervention, 
but the translation of such massive 
reports and publications still proves to 
be challenging (National Reading 
Panel, 2000; National Early Literacy 
Report, 2008).  Overwhelmingly, the 
research has established a need for 
instructional competency during the 
first couple of years of schooling to 
overcome literacy deficiency 
(Reynolds et al., 2011).  

 
Methods for Delivery of Reading 
Instruction 
 

Reading instruction can align 
with various theoretical concepts or 
frameworks. The NRP’s evaluation of 
the various instructional approaches 
and its establishment of the “Big 5” 
provides a narrowed focus for 
approaching reading instruction. 
Phonemic awareness, phonics, 
vocabulary, fluency, and 
comprehension are essential to any 
program choice or explicit 
instructional practice. The question of 
how efficient and how applicable a 
given program may be for a particular 
setting remains largely unanswered 
due to the scarcity of affirmative data.  

While reading instruction 
may be delivered explicitly by an 
educational professional using any 
variety of programs that address the 
skills determined most essential, the 
era of technology has also ushered in 
the option of computer-based 
instruction (Messer & Nash, 2018). 
Consequently, there are multiple 
software programs across the 
educational spectrum created to 
addresses student needs by program 
design.  

Messer and Nash (2018) 
affirm the success of one-on-one 
tutoring in phonics instruction but 
also hold that efficacy is greater with 
the instruction coming from a 
professional educator rather than a 
paraprofessional. It is, however, 
costly to employ adequate personnel 
to implement such instructional 
practices. The costly nature of a 
professional educator’s time opens 
the door for the more cost-effective 

Page 51 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

nature of computer-based instruction. 
The availability of computer-assisted 
instruction provides the opportunity 
for professional instruction at a 
greater economic advantage since 
differentiated instruction or even 
individual attention can be provided 
despite staffing limitations allowing 
students to receive supplemental 
instruction without pulling a 
classroom teacher away from other 
responsibilities.   

Along with cost effectiveness, 
computer-assisted instruction also 
offers such advantages as enhanced 
motivation, individual pacing, instant 
feedback, and a combined sense of 
learning with judgment-free response 
(Messer & Nash, 2018). Computer-
assisted instruction provides a variety 
of supports, like pictures and 
animations, that facilitate emerging 
literacy skills (Macaruso & Rodman, 
2011) that may also improve 
motivation. Additionally, 
computerized feedback is instant for 
all students without the time required 
by teachers to work through 
assignments that have been submitted 
by an entire class (Blok, et al., 2002). 
Prompt response allows students to 
work at their own pace and level, 
thus, the appropriateness of 
independent practice may be 
substantially enhanced.  

Two studies investigating 
kindergarteners’ phonological 
awareness training using computer-
assisted instruction provided via 
Waterford Early Reading Program 
(WERP) found positive results. Hecht 

and Close (2002) reported that at-risk 
kindergarteners using WERP scored 
higher on tests of phonological skills, 
letter-sound knowledge, and word 
reading than those who did not use 
WERP. In a study by Cassady and 
Smith (2004), kindergartners using 
WERP made greater gains than 
controls on tests of phonological 
awareness.  

Macaruso and Walker (2008) 
examined the benefits of Lexia’s 
Early Reading as a supplement to a 
phonics-based reading curriculum for 
kindergartners. Two matched classes 
(morning and afternoon sessions 
taught by the same teacher using the 
same curriculum) in an urban, public 
school system served as the treatment 
and comparison groups. Results 
showed a significant increase on 
posttest measures of phonological 
awareness skills for students 
receiving computer-assisted 
instruction, particularly for those with 
the lowest pretest scores. 

Similarly, Macaruso and 
Rodman (2011) conducted two studies 
examining the use of computer-assisted 
instruction to supplement a phonics-
based reading curriculum for urban 
preschoolers and kindergartners. For 
preschoolers, the treatment group made 
significantly greater gains in 
phonological awareness. For 
kindergartners, treatment students with 
low pretest scores made significantly 
greater gains, particularly in word 
reading. Overall, preschoolers and low-
performing kindergartners benefited 
from the intensive practice provided 
through computer-assisted instruction. 

Page 52 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Gibson, Cartledge, and Keyes 
(2011) examined the effects of a 
computerized supplemental reading 
program on the oral reading fluency, 
reading growth rates, and 
comprehension of eight African 
American first graders. Using the 
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early 
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) oral 
reading fluency (ORF) as a posttest 
measure, all participants increased 
their reading fluency and improved 
their comprehension scores. Seven of 
the students increased their reading 
rate. These findings led researchers to 
support computer-assisted programs 
as supplementary interventions. 

Bennett, Gardner, Cartledge, 
Ramnath, and Council (2017) 
conducted a study investigating the 
effects of a multicomponent, 
supplemental intervention on the 
reading fluency of seven urban, 
African-American second graders 
who showed reading and special 
education risk. The packaged 
intervention combined repeated 
readings and culturally relevant 
stories, delivered through a novel 
computer software program to 
enhance oral reading fluency and 
comprehension. Results showed that 
participants exceeded the growth 
rates for comparison peers, thus, 
supporting the beneficial effects of 
both repeated reading strategies and 
computer delivered instruction. 

Keyes and Vostal (2016) 
investigated the impact of a 
computer-assisted intervention on the 
oral reading fluency of four 

elementary (1st-6th grade) students 
with learning disabilities. The 
students engaged with the 
computerized repeated reading 
program for 30 minutes three times a 
week for 10 weeks in an inclusive 
classroom during the reading-
language arts block. Data revealed 
mixed results as all students increased 
their oral fluency on progress 
monitoring generalization passages 
and tended to reach their goals, but 
only two of the four students showed 
a positive level change on the 
computerized repeated reading 
intervention passages. 

Keyes et al. (2016) examined 
the effectiveness of a supplemental 
repeated reading intervention 
delivered through a computer-
assisted instruction program on the 
oral reading fluency (ORF), 
comprehension, and generalization of 
second graders who were at risk for 
reading failure. Six students received 
the Read Naturally Software Edition 
(RNSE) treatment passages three to 
four times a week for 7 to 12 weeks. 
A multiple baseline across 
participants design with embedded 
changing criteria tactics revealed 
ORF increases for all six participants. 
AIMS-web stories and classroom 
reading materials were used to assess 
clinical and classroom generalization. 
Five of the six participants increased 
their ORF on both generalization 
measures. Comprehension 
assessments revealed mixed results. 

Todtfeld and Weakley (2013) 
found that 3rd-grade students using i-

Page 53 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Ready in Ohio public schools showed 
significant improvements on state 
tests in comparison with those who 
did not use the program. It should be 
noted, however that third, fourth and 
fifth grade students were studied, and 
there was only evidence that i-Ready 
made a difference in MAP 
Communication Arts Composite 
scores for third graders. 

Given the broad availability 
of computer-assisted program options 
and the fact that there is still a 
significant gap in achievement, their 
classroom use must be investigated 
further. Since the current body of 
research acknowledges at least 
minimal positive effects of computer-
based programs in providing 
supplemental reading instruction 
(Messer & Nash, 2018), it is 
important to explicitly consider 
program attributes when assessing 
potential effectiveness (Coffee et al., 
2014). Among the many program 
options, some may offer more 
relevant insight and ease of 
accessibility that may be more, or less 
appealing, and ultimately more or less 
effective depending on the 
individualized needs of the targeted 
student population. 

 
Significance and Purpose 
 

The extent to which new 
technologies effectively support 
reading instruction and learning in the 
classroom is unknown. There is little 
empirical research on the topic 
generally and even less that 

specifically addresses computer-
assisted reading instruction for first 
graders. There is, however, promising 
evidence of the effectiveness of 
reading instruction, such as 
computer-based technology, that 
integrates print and visual texts 
(Todfeld & Weakley, 2013).  

For the past three years, many 
first-grade students in a large, 
southern school district have not 
demonstrated proficiency on the 
STAR Early Literacy Test, which is 
the district’s primary measurement 
tool for reading achievement. In 
effort to increase reading 
achievement, the district recently 
adopted a new reading program 
(Wonders) aligned to Common Core 
State Standards. Two years later, the 
district piloted a new computer-
assisted supplemental reading 
program (i-Ready) with the goal of 
significantly improving students’ 
reading achievement. The purpose of 
this study was to investigate whether 
the computer-assisted reading 
program had a positive impact. The 
specific research question is as 
follows: Are end-of-the-year STAR 
scores higher for first graders who 
receive supplemental reading 
instruction through the i-Ready 
program? 

 
Method 
 
Participants 
 

Purposive sampling was used 
to identify a school that implemented 

Page 54 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

i-Ready and a demographically 
similar school that did not implement 
i-Ready. Participants (n=167) were 
first grade students at two public 
elementary schools within the same 
district located in the Southeastern 
United States. Both were Title I 
schools in an urban setting, serving a 
high poverty student population with 
all students receiving free lunch. 
School size was also similar, as both 
enrolled over 500 students in 
kindergarten through fifth grade with 
over 35 teachers.  

The treatment group (n=85) 
included four first grade classes, and 
the comparison group (n=82) 
included five first grade classes. 
Table 1 shows the demographics for 
both groups.  
 
Table 1 
Participant Demographics 
 
Group 

  Gender           Race   
M       F      Black   Other 

Treatment 45 40   81   4 
Comparison 47 35   82   0 
Total 92 75 163   4 

 
First grade teachers at both 

schools had previously participated in 
a half-day professional development 
for the i-Ready program. Participants 
in the treatment group received 150 
minutes of core instruction daily 
using the McGraw-Hill literacy 
curriculum Wonders and two 45-
minute session of i-Ready computer-
assisted reading instruction each 
week.  

 

Teaching and Learning Materials 
 

Wonders is a literacy program 
developed by McGraw-Hill aligned 
to Common Core State Standards 
(Dorsey, 2015). It provides a 
comprehensive set of connected 
resources for teaching elementary (K-
6th) students reading, writing, and 
critical thinking skills along with a 
social emotional learning curriculum 
for kindergarten and first grade. The 
Wonders program is equipped with 
teacher lesson plans and materials for 
full implementation as well as 
professional development resources 
(McGraw-Hill, 2019). All print 
resources are also available digitally, 
and the program is equipped with a 
data dashboard that provides for 
organization and recording of student 
assessments and other links 
(Shafferman, 2016).  

All schools in this study 
used the Wonders program as a 
core reading curriculum.  
Teachers implemented this 
program within their two-hour 
literacy block in their daily 
schedule. In addition to the core 
curriculum, one school in the 
present study piloted the iReady, 
a supplementary computer-
based program.  

The i-Ready software package 
delivers student instruction, 
performance diagnostics, and 
progress reports based on K-12 
Common Core State Standards in 
Mathematics and Reading. Designed 
to provide differentiated instruction 

Page 55 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

in order to simultaneously address the 
individual needs of multiple students, 
the program can be used as a 
supplement to teacher-directed whole 
and small group instruction. The 
adaptive diagnostic varies in 
difficulty based on the student’s 
previous answers so that correct 
answers lead to more challenging 
questions while incorrect answers 
lead to easier questions. Immediately 
following the diagnostic, students 
work on customized online 
instruction that includes an 
interactive lesson, example problems, 
and practice problems. While the 
target audience is students who are 
struggling academically, i-Ready can 
be used to promote growth of all 
learners, since assessment data is 
used to match online lessons to a 
specific standard or sub-skill based on 
individual need. The program uses 
student centered engagement 
features, such as choosing a custom 
theme, earning tokens, and playing 
games, to motivate student 
participation (EdSurge, 2019).   

The STAR Early Literacy 
Test was used in this study to measure 
reading achievement. Designed for 
use from kindergarten through second 
grade, it is a computer-adaptive 
assessment that assesses proficiency 
in early literacy skills, such as general 
readiness, phonemic awareness, 
graphophonemic awareness, phonics, 
vocabulary, comprehension, and 
structural analysis (Renaissance 
Learning, 2014).  Using the Rasch 
ability scale, the test data provides a 

score ranging from 300-900 called the 
Scaled Score (SS), which identifies a 
student’s reading level as emergent 
(SS below 675), transitional (SS 675 
-774) or probable (SS 775 and above) 
(Renaissance Learning, 2014). 

 
Data Collection and Analysis 
 
 Having received necessary 
permissions from the district, school 
administrators, and the University’s 
Institutional Review Board, mid-year 
(January) and end-of-year (May) 
STAR Early Literacy data for both 
groups (treatment and comparison) 
were acquired from the databases of 
the two sample schools. Missing 
scores resulted in the analysis of data 
for 82 treatment participants and 77 
comparison participants. To protect 
confidentiality, names were removed, 
and each participant was given an 
identification number. 
 SPSS Statistical Software was 
used for data analysis. In order to 
control for differences in reading 
achievement between groups, the 
mid-year reading achievement scores, 
as measured by the STAR Early 
Literacy Test, were compared using 
an independent samples t-test. Results 
indicated no statistically significant 
differences in reading achievement at 
the beginning of this research study, 
t(157) = -0.08, p = .94.  This provided 
additional evidence of the similarity 
between the groups. Then, the end-of-
year reading achievement scores, as 
measured by the STAR Early 
Literacy Test, were compared using 

Page 56 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

an independent samples t-test to 
determine if differences existed 
between the two groups at the 
conclusion of the treatment.  
 
Results 
 

The results of an independent 
samples t-test conducted at the end of 
the year to compare the reading 
achievement of the treatment and 
comparison groups indicated no 
statistically significant difference in 
scores for students who participated 
in the i-Ready program (M = 712.08, 
SD = 99.20) and those who did not 
participate in the i-Ready program (M 
= 726.87, SD = 106.11), t(157) = -
0.91, p = .37. Table 2 provides the 
means and standard deviations for the 
treatment and comparison groups.  
 
Table 2 
Means and Standard Deviations for 
Groups on Reading Achievement 
 
 

N Mean 
Standard 
Deviation 

Treatment    
     i-Ready  
     Program 

77 712.08     99.20 

Comparison      
   No  
   i-Ready    
   Program 

   
82 

726.87   106.11 

 
Discussion 
 

While computer-assisted 
instruction could have merit for 
targeting instruction to student’s 

needs with respect to improved 
reading achievement, the results of 
this study did not support this 
position. Findings from this study are 
like those of Dynarski et al. (2007), 
who evaluated five computer-based 
reading programs used to provide 
first-grade instruction in reading in 42 
schools with 2,619 students and did 
not find a significant impact on 
reading growth from computer-based 
instruction. While Dynarski and 
colleagues attributed less direct 
instruction as contributing to the non-
significant influence of computer-
assisted instruction, that does not 
appear to be the case here. There are, 
however, several possible reasons 
that could account for the limited 
measurable benefit of the i-Ready 
supplemental computer-assisted 
reading instruction for first graders in 
this study, which include 
implementation procedures, student 
age, student engagement, and student 
selection. 
 First, implementation 
procedures could have possibly 
affected the results. In this study, 
students were expected to spend 45 
minutes on computer-assisted 
instruction in reading during two 
sessions on two separate days each 
week. Scheduling conflicts resulting 
from field trips, assemblies, and 
school-wide early dismissals along 
with student absences could have 
caused inconsistency in the 
occurrence of computer-assisted 
instruction sessions per student. 
Similarly, technical difficulties and 

Page 57 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

lack of computer proficiency could 
have resulted in students receiving 
less than the total 45 minutes during 
each session that occurred. If all 
students participated in an entire 45-
minute session twice weekly, the 
results may have been different. 
Given time constraints within the 
school day, supplemental computer-
assisted reading instruction provided 
outside of the regular instructional 
day may yield more significant 
results. 
 Since age is typically a 
predictor of maturity, the age of 
students in this study could have been 
a substantial factor as well. Student’s 
ability to focus for 45-minute 
intervals of computer-assisted 
instruction requires a functional level 
of maturity that may be beyond many 
6-year-olds. Getting distracted easily, 
having poor concentration, lacking 
time management skills, and/or tiring 
easily may have prevented students in 
this study from receiving the 
maximum benefits of the computer-
assisted instruction.   
 As with all instructional 
success, student engagement may 
have also been a crucial factor, as 
students lacking motivation for 
proficiency will not perform to their 
highest abilities. Students who were 
bored and unfocused or disinterested 
in the computer activities were very 
likely to have made random 
selections in their responses rather 
than a vested effort to answer 
cognitively with intentional accuracy.  

 Another factor of particular 
relevance to explaining this study’s 
finding is the student selection. 
Participant scores were analyzed for 
in-tact classes without any regard to 
students’ reading level. There was no 
categorical focus in the selection 
process. Computer supported 
instruction has been found to engage 
readers labeled at-risk in ways that 
may help compensate for inadequate 
reading ability (McKenna et al., 
1999), and those at-risk of academic 
failure are sometimes the most adept 
and interested in understanding and 
utilizing computer-based learning 
(Alvermann, 2001). Further, research 
studies have shown positive, albeit 
inconsistent effects of computer-
based instruction on improving 
reading abilities for students with 
learning disabilities and reading 
difficulties (Stetter & Hughes, 2010). 
Thus, supplemental computer-
assisted instruction may result in the 
greatest gain for low-performing 
students. If the students had been 
intentionally selected based on 
certain performance competencies or 
lack of competency, such as low mid-
year STAR scores, then the results 
may have yielded a different 
outcome.   
 A final factor contributing to 
the limited positive influence of 
computer-assisted instruction in this 
study could be a lack of alignment 
with instruction delivered via 
computer with that delivered by the 
teachers. In a study of first-grade 
students at risk for reading disabilities 

Page 58 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

by Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, 
Herron and Lindamood (2010), there 
were no differences in student reading 
performance between students 
assigned to the different intervention 
conditions using computer-assisted 
instruction, but the combined-
intervention students, who received 
instruction delivered by specially 
trained teachers to prepare students 
for their work on the computer, 
performed significantly better than 
control students who had been 
exposed to their school’s normal 
reading program. Thus, researchers 
concluded that reading instruction 
integrated very closely with students’ 
experiences on the computer were 
needed to obtain a positive result. In 
this study, no attempt was made to 
coordinate teacher-delivered 
instruction with the computer-
assisted instruction.   
Limitations 
 There are several limitations 
that should be considered when 
examining the results of this study. 
The primary limitation of this study 
was the limited sample size (n=85). A 
larger sample size would increase the 
precision of being able to generalize 
the findings to a larger population. 
Furthermore, the study site was likely 
not representational of all elementary 
schools. Another limitation of the 
study is that class enrollment cannot 
be considered random selection, thus, 
limiting the generalizability of the 
study findings to individuals with 
similar demographics. A final 
limitation is related to the measure 

used. Although the reported 
reliability of the STAR Early Literacy 
Test is known, all measures are 
subject to some error, and the 
reliability with the specific 
participants in this study was not 
known. 
 
Future Research 
 

It is difficult to ascertain a 
specific reason for the outcome of this 
study, but the results do provide 
insight into the essential need for 
further research to support the 
selection and purchase of 
instructional materials. Currently, 
there is a lack of research evaluating 
the effect of computer-assisted 
instruction on reading achievement. 
With the overwhelming saturation of 
computer-related products that will 
surely become available to educators 
in the years to come, more studies are 
needed to inform and justify decisions 
regarding their purchase and 
implementation. Additional research 
is needed to further investigate the 
effectiveness of computer-assisted 
instruction delivered for students of 
various ages and reading abilities. 
Research on the effectiveness of 
various programs providing 
computer-assisted reading instruction 
across kindergarten, first-, and 
second-grade classrooms should be 
conducted, and it is recommended 
that the computer-assisted instruction 
provided is intentionally aligned with 
the instruction being delivered by 
teachers as part of the normal reading 

Page 59 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

curriculum. Studies with a larger 
sample size, longer research timeline, 
and a more controlled environment 
conducted over multiple sites would 
be additionally informative. Research 
ensuring diverse demographics of 
participants would be particularly 
beneficial as this would increase the 
generalizability of results. 

 
Conclusion 
 

Although the data were not 
conclusive, this study opens a 
doorway for developing future 
studies and provides meaningful data 
for school and district administrators 
responsible for spending funds to 
purchase programs for computer-
assisted instruction. The level of 
popularity and perceived 
effectiveness of computer-based 
instruction in reading may vary, but 
computers have won a permanent 
place in today’s classrooms. 
Computer technology may be part of 
the long-term solution for dyslexic 
and other at-risk students as a result 
of its capacity to provide highly 
specialized instruction and practice 
for relatively low cost with relatively 
high fidelity (Torgesen et al., 2009). 
Similarly, iPads® have been utilized 
in educational programs for 
individuals with Autism Spectrum 
Disorder (Neely et al. 2013; El Zein 
et al., 2016). Beneficial results of 
computer-assisted instruction with 
specialized populations, however, 
does not guarantee that it will yield 
similar favorable results with all 

students. Northrop and Killeen (2013) 
recognize that incorporating 
technology into academic instruction 
has the potential to increase 
engagement and motivation but 
caution that academic achievement 
could be hindered as children gain 
proficiency with technology rather 
than with the targeted literacy 
concepts. For many, varied reasons, 
further investigation of supplemental, 
computer-assisted reading instruction 
and teachers’ use of technology for 
meaningful reading and writing 
instruction must also be explored. 

References 

 
Adams, M.J. (1990) Beginning to 

Read: Thinking and Learning 
about Print. Cambridge, MA: 
MIT Press. 

 
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading 

adolescents' reading 
identities: Looking back to 
see ahead. Journal of 
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 
44(8), 676–690. 

 
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., Osborn, 

J., O’Rourke, R., Beck, I, 
Carnine, D., & Simmons, D.  
(2001). Put reading first. 
Washington, DC: National 
Institute for Literacy. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/e3656
82004-005  

 
Bennett, J. G., Gardner, R, Cartledge, 

G., Ramnath, R & Council, 

Page 60 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

M. R. (2017). Second-grade 
urban learners: Preliminary 
findings for a computer-
assisted, culturally relevant, 
repeated reading intervention. 
Education and Treatment of 
Children, 40(2), 145–186. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.20
17.0008  

 
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., 

& Overmat,M. (2002). 
Computer-assisted instruction 
in support of beginning 
reading instruction. Review of 
Educational Research, 72(1), 
101-131. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346
543072001101  

 
Cassady, J. C. & Smith, L. L. (2004). 

The impact of a reading-
focused integrated learning 
system on phonological 
awareness in kindergarten. 
Journal of Literacy Research, 
35(4), 947–964. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1554
8430jlr3504_2 

 
Coffee, G., Newell, M. L., & 

Kennedy, A. S. (2014). 
Supporting collaborative 
efforts in implementing 
evidence-based reading 
interventions: The role of 
online databases. Journal of 
Educational & Psychological 
Consultation, 24(2), 81–95. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474
412.2014.903188 

 
Dorsey,W. (2015). Balanced reading 

basals and the impact on third-
grade reading achievement. 
Journal of Organizational & 
Educational Leadership. 1(2), 
2. 

 
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, 

S., Novak, T., Carey, N., & 
Campuzano, L. (2007). 
Effectiveness of reading and 
mathematics software 
products: Findings from the 
first student cohort. 
Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Education. 

 
EdSurge, (2019). i-Ready. 

https://www.edsurge.com/pro
duct-reviews/i-ready  

 
El Zein, F., Gevarter, C., Bryant, B.,  

Son, S., Bryant, D., Kim, M. 
& Solis, M. (2016). A 
comparison between iPad-
assisted and teacher-directed 
reading instruction for 
students with Autism 
Spectrum Disorder (ASD). 
Journal of Developmental & 
Physical Disabilities, 28(2), 
195–215. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1088
2-015-9458-9  
 

 
 
 
 
 

Page 61 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Fiester, L. (2010). Early Warning!  
Why Reading by the End of 
Third Grade Matters. KIDS 
COUNT Special 
Report. Annie E. Casey 
Foundation. 
 

Gibson Jr., L., Cartledge, G, & Keyes, 
S. E. (2011). A preliminary 
investigation of supplemental 
computer-assisted reading 
instruction on the oral reading 
fluency and comprehension of 
first-grade African American 
urban students. Journal of 
Behavior Education, 20(4), 
260-282. https://doi.org/ 
10.1007/s10864-011-9136-7 

 
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. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022
-0965(02)00001-2  

 
Keyes, S. E., & Vostal, B. R. (2016). 

“But, did it work?” Effects of 
teacher-implemented 
computer-assisted instruction 
in oral reading fluency for 
students with learning 
disabilities. International 
Journal of Humanities and 
Social Science Invention, 
5(3), 29-37.   

 
Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson,  

L., Jr., & Robinson-Ervin, P. 
(2016). Programming for 
generalization of oral reading 
fluency using computer-
assisted instruction and 
changing fluency criteria. 
Education and Treatment of 
Children 39(2), 141-172. 
doi:10.1353/etc.2016.0011  
 
 

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. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702
711003608071  
 

Macaruso, P., & Walker, A. (2008). 
The efficacy of computer-
assisted instruction for 
advanced literacy kills in 
kindergarten children. 
Reading Psychology, 29(3), 
266–287. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702
710801982019   

 
McGraw-Hill. (2019). Wonders: 

Resource Overview. 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ec
ommerce-
prod.mheducation.com/unitas
/school/explore/sites/reading-
wonders/wonders-2020-
overview-brochure.pdf 

Page 62 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

McKenna, M.C., Reinking, D., 
Labbo, L.D., & Kieffer, R.D. 
(1999).  The electronic 
transformation of literacy and 
its implications for the 
struggling reader.  Reading 
and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 
111-
127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/
105735699278233  

 
Messer, D., & Nash, G. (2018). An 

evaluation of the 
effectiveness of a computer-
assisted intervention. Journal 
of Research in Reading. 
41(1), 140-158. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9817.12107  

 
National Early Literacy Panel (US). 

(2008). Developing early 
literacy: Report of the 
National Early Literacy 
Panel: A scientific synthesis 
of early literacy development 
and implications for 
intervention. National 
Institute for Literacy. 

 
National Reading Panel. (2000). 

Report of the National 
Reading Panel: Teaching 
children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the 
scientific research literature 
on reading and its 
implications for reading 
instruction. NICHD 
Clearinghouse.  

 

Neely, L., Rispoli, M., Camargo, S.,  
Davis, H., & Boles, M. 
(2013). The effect of  
instructional use of an 
iPad®on challenging 
behavior and academic 
engagement for two students 
with autism. Research in 
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 
7(4), 509 –516. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.
2012.12.004   
 

Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A  
framework for using iPads to 
build early literacy skills. The 
Reading Teacher, 66(7), 531 
–537. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.11
55   
 

Renaissance Learning. (2014). STAR  
Early Literacy Technical 
Manual. Wisconsin Rapids, 
WI: Renaissance Learning, 
Inc. 

 
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K.,& 

Madelaine, A. (2011). What 
recent reviews tell us about 
the efficacy of reading 
interventions for struggling 
readers in the early years of 
schooling. International 
Journal of Disability, 
Development, and Education. 
58(3), 257-286. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10349
12x.2011.598406   

Page 63 of 68



Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Shafferman, B. (2016, November 16). 
Wonders: Data Dashboard 
[Blog post].  
https://techtiptuesdayblog.wo
rdpress.com/2016/11/16/won
ders-data-dashboard/  
 

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), 1-16. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/01626
4341002500401  
 

Todtfeld, D., & Weakley, W.  
(2013). The impact of 
instructional reading  
technology programs on 
student reading achievement. 
(Doctoral dissertation, 
Northwest Missouri State 
University) 
https://www.nwmissouri.edu/
library/fieldstudies/2013/Todt
feld,%20Danny.pdf  
 

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., 
Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & 
Lindamood, P. (2010).  
Computer-assisted instruction 
to prevent early reading 
difficulties in students at risk 
for dyslexia: Outcomes from 
two instructional approaches. 
Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40-
56.  

 

Page 64 of 68




