Search

The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the impact of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on ELA achievement, as measured by SBA scores. We compared "striving learner" students who were assigned to use i-Ready Personalized Instruction (Treatment students) and "striving learner" students assigned to only receive i-Ready Diagnostic assessments (Comparison students). The study sample consisted of 8,722 "striving learner" students in Grades 3-6 from four school districts in California. All four districts used i-Ready Diagnostic assessments, but schools in one district assigned some students to receive the Personalized Instruction product in addition to the Diagnostic product. Striving learner students in this district assigned to both the Personalized Instruction and Diagnostic products were compared to striving learner students in the other districts who were only assigned to the Diagnostic product. Results of this study did not show any statistically significant associations between i-Ready Personalized Instruction usage and SBA ELA achievement. Notably, less than 20% of treatment students met i-Ready's recommended usage guidelines of at least 30 minutes per week of Personalized Instruction use for at least 18 weeks. Students that met usage guidelines directionally outperformed comparison students, although this impact was not significant. Overall, impacts were directionally positive for students who met usage guidelines, but the large percentage of students who did meet recommended guidelines may have impacted overall patterns of results. Taken with the results of similar mathematics achievement analyses, additional implementation focus may be warranted on ensuring that as many students as possible reach Personalized Instruction usage guidelines.

The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the impact of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on math achievement, as measured by SBA scores. We compared "striving learner" students who were assigned to use i-Ready Personalized Instruction (Treatment students) and "striving learner" students assigned to only receive i-Ready Diagnostic assessments (Comparison students). The study sample consisted of 11,034 "striving learner" students in Grades 3-6 from four school districts in California. All four districts used i-Ready Diagnostic assessments, but schools in one district assigned some students to receive the Personalized Instruction product in addition to the Diagnostic product. Striving learner students in this district assigned to both the Personalized Instruction and Diagnostic products were compared to striving learner students in the other districts who were only assigned to the Diagnostic product. Overall, this analysis presents promising evidence of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on student math achievement. This relationship between i-Ready Personalized Instruction and math achievement was strongest for students in Grades 4 and 5 and students identified as Black. Usage was also related to achievement and future studies should seek to further examine the reasons behind this variation in usage.

The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the impact of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on math achievement, as measured by SBA scores. We compared students in schools using i-Ready Personalized Instruction school-wide (Treatment students) and students who only received i-Ready Diagnostic assessments and who were in schools only partially using i-Ready Personalized Instruction (Comparison students). The study sample consisted of 5,330 students in 22 schools from Grades 3-6 from one school district in southern California. All schools used i-Ready Diagnostic assessments, but some schools were considered "full instruction" and assigned all students to receive both the Diagnostic and Personalized Instruction products. Students in these schools were compared to "diagnostic-only" students in other "partial instruction" schools where only some students received the Instruction product in addition to the Diagnostic product. (These Diagnostic and Instruction students in partial instruction schools are not included in this study.) Overall, this analysis presents promising evidence of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on student math achievement. This relationship between i-Ready Personalized Instruction and math achievement was strongest for students in Title I eligible schools, Grade 4, and among students who met the recommended usage guidelines. Future studies should seek to further examine the reasons behind this variation in usage.

The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the impact of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on reading achievement, as measured by SBA scores. We compared students in schools using i-Ready Personalized Instruction school-wide (Treatment students) to students who only received i-Ready Diagnostic assessments and who were in schools only partially using i-Ready Personalized Instruction (Comparison students). The study sample consisted of about 5,632 students in 22 schools from Grades 3-6 from one school district in southern California. All schools used i-Ready Diagnostic assessments, but some schools were considered "full instruction" and assigned all students to receive both the Diagnostic and Personalized Instruction products. Students in these schools were compared to "Diagnostic-only" students in other "partial Instruction" schools where only some students received the Personalized Instruction product in addition to the Diagnostic product. (These Diagnostic and Personalized Instruction students in partial instruction schools are not included in this study.) We did not find that treatment students had significantly higher SBA ELA scores, although directionally, treatment students averaged higher SBA ELA scores than did comparison students. Supplementary analysis of students achieving proficiency in reading on their SBA score showed that treatment did have a statistically significant impact on this outcome. Specifically, students in the treatment group had 1.6 times higher odds of scoring proficient (versus not scoring at least proficient) than their peers in the comparison group. No significant patterns were found in the impact of treatment on specific student subgroups. Overall, this analysis presents promising evidence of i-Ready Personalized Instruction on student reading proficiency. This relationship between i-Ready Personalized Instruction and reading achievement was strongest for students with higher usage of the program. Future studies should seek to further examine the reasons behind this variation in usage.