In a Los Angeles RCT, Earobics® plus Open Court improved phonological awareness but not letter knowledge, phonics, or fluency¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2009 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Cognitive Concepts (2003) found statistically significant positive effects on three phonological awareness subtests (effect sizes 0.64, 0.63, 0.59) but not on letter naming, sound of letters, or words-per-minute measures. → What Works Clearinghouse 2009 q3 i? Effects on letter knowledge (ORAL-J Letter Naming, ES 0.01) and phonics (ORAL-J Sound of Letters, ES 0.22) were not statistically significant. → What Works Clearinghouse 2009 (2)

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2009¶

What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). WWC Intervention Report: Earobics®. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.earobics.com

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Randomized controlled trial in one Los Angeles elementary school: 39 intervention students using Earobics® 30 minutes daily plus Open Court versus 35 comparison students using Open Court only, October to December. Appendix A3.1 reports effect sizes of 0.64, 0.63, and 0.59, all statistically significant.

"Cognitive Concepts (2003) found statistically significant positive effects on three phonological awareness measures (ORAL-J: Blending into Words, Segmenting into Sounds, and Rhyming Words subtests)."

What Works Clearinghouse 2009 (2)¶

What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). WWC Intervention Report: Earobics®. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.earobics.com

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Same RCT analysis sample of 74 students. Appendix A3.1 shows effect sizes of 0.01 for Letter Naming and 0.22 for Sound of Letters, both marked ns; equivalence was not the focus of testing.

"The study authors did not find statistically significant effects of Earobics® on the letter knowledge measure (ORAL-J: Letter Naming subtest) or the phonics measure (ORAL-J: Sound of Letters subtest)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Alphabet Knowledge and Print Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it
• Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In a Chicago quasi-experiment, Earobics®'s overall effect was not significant, but the CTOPP Sound Matching subtest showed a significant positive effect — related
• In an Anchorage RCT with severe differential attrition, Earobics® effects on alphabetics were not statistically significant and one subtest showed a substantively important negative effect — related
• Kindergarteners using Bridge to Reading showed greater growth in phonological awareness and phonics/word recognition (ES +0.22 each) — related
• Technology-enhanced stories show no significant additional effect on code-related literacy skills — related
• In a Florida RCT, Earobics® outperformed no-supplement control on several DIBELS subtests but showed no significant advantage over Lexia Early Reading — related
• Lexia Early Reading shows no significant advantage over Earobics on alphabetics, with several negative effects substantively important — related
• Teaching phonological awareness and print knowledge improved decoding performance even without decoding instruction, and adding decoding instruction more than doubled the weighted effect size — related
• Early reading interventions in grades K–2 increase foundational reading processes with an average effect size of 0.51 — related
• The multi-component intervention produced statistically significant advantages over business-as-usual on one decoding measure (ES = 0.58) and one fluency measure (ES = 0.46), but not on reading comprehension — related