Study 3

Results of Morgan Elementary/Delta South Elementary Research Study
*Conducted in 2004-2005 School year

Design

The study utilized a pretest-post test control group design with one experimental group and one comparison group. Because the study took place within a school, subjects could not be randomly assigned to groups.

The comparison group was located at a school viewed to be very similar to the school where the experimental group was located. Both schools were small, rural elementary schools. However, SES levels appeared to be higher among the students at the experimental group’s school.


Subjects

Subjects were 28 third and fourth grade students at two elementary schools in two districts in Utah. Only students given permission by their parents were allowed to participate in the study. The experimental group and comparison groups were both composed of 4 third graders and 10 fourth graders. Each group had 9 male students and 5 female students. Students in the comparison group were selected to match to some degree the students in the experimental group.

Subjects in both the experimental and comparison groups were selected by their teachers and then tested to see if they would benefit from the Learning Technics program. The following criteria were used by teachers to determine eligibility to participate:

• Needed to have significant difficulty with schoolwork

• Good attendance

• Lack of other contributing factors to learning problems (e.g. emotional trauma, physical handicaps, etc.)

• Additional considerations, such as, ability to cooperate, parental support etc.

The students selected by the teachers were then screened for perceptual difficulties using the Learning Technics Intercept Screening Instrument. Candidates were then ranked according to composite scores and placed on a list of those recommended for placement. The school administration was given the opportunity to provide input into the final selection of students.

Measures

Both groups of students were administered the Stanford Achievement Test. The scores on the following subtests were used for analysis:

• Reading Vocabulary

• Reading Comprehension

• Math Problem Solving

• Math Procedures

• Spelling

Instructional Materials

The Intercept Program is a highly structured and sequential series of activities that a trained para-professional uses to teach Intercept students thirty minutes each school day. These activities are similar to physical therapy used to treat brain-damaged people. These physical strategies are designed to stimulate and strengthen poorly developed neurological circuits that have made learning difficult. As new cognitive neurons connect, information is processed more easily.

Procedures

Each group of students were administered the SAT test. The pretest was administered on September 15th and 16th and the posttest was administered on May 9th and 10th. The same individual carried out testing.

Once testing was completed, the experimental group of students were introduced to his/her Intercept Instructor and the purpose of the Program. They began participating in the activities in Level A, which were used to introduce each process in isolation.

Students continued to work for thirty minutes per day, one on one with their instructor, using the Intercept manual, working on the development of the ten essential
perceptual processes: Focus, Cross Pattern, Motor Match, use a Mental Picture, Track, Figure Ground, Determine Direction, Position in Space, Size, and Shape.

These different activities carried on for Levels B, C, D, E, F, and G. As the students progressed through each succeeding level, the activities became more complex. Level B combined two processes, Level C three processes. Succeeding levels continued combining processes until all ten processes were used simultaneously in levels F and G.

Comparison group members received no such instruction and engaged in normal classroom activities during the period of the experiment.

During the instruction, Technics teachers were observed by Technics Trainers. Training was constantly reviewed and revised as needed.

Results

Before carrying out the analysis of the effects of the intervention, an analysis of preexisting group differences was conducted. Means and standard deviations for raw scores of the SAT subtests are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Means and Standard Deviations of Pre-intervention Test Scores for Experimental and Control Groups

As can be seen in the table, the groups were not equivalent. The experimental group performed better on average than the comparison group on the pretests. A t-test was conducted on each test with group serving as the independent variable. Differences between the groups on the Reading Comprehension and Math Problem Solving pretests were found to be statistically significant. All other differences were not
statistically significant.

The results of these analyses indicate that there are significant preexisting differences between the two groups. These initial differences warranted the use of covariates in the analysis. The use of covariates is intended to ensure that theses preexisting differences will be controlled for during the analysis.

The effectiveness of the intervention was determined by comparing posttest differences between groups using pretest scores as covariates. To test this possibility, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted on post-test scores using the pretest scores as covariates. The independent variable was the experimental condition (experimental group or comparison group).

The results are presented in the Tables below:

Table 2 – Results of the ANCOVA between Reading Vocabulary Posttest Scores and Experimental Condition

Table 3 – Results of the ANCOVA between Reading Comprehension Posttest Scores and Experimental Condition

Table 4 – Results of the ANCOVA between Math Problem Solving Posttest Scores and Experimental Condition

Table 5 – Results of the ANCOVA between Math Procedures Posttest Scores and Experimental Condition

Table 6 – Results of the ANCOVA between Spelling Posttest Scores and Experimental Condition

Results for group (experimental group membership) were statistically significant for the reading comprehension and math procedures subtests. The results for reading vocabulary, math problem solving, and spelling were not statistically significant.

Comparative Grade Equivalent Gains

The purpose of this study was to determine if the Intercept Program could significantly improve struggling students’ ability to turn teaching into learning. Fourteen students were selected from an experimental group (Morgan Elementary) and fourteen students were selected for the control group (Delta South Elementary).

Each student in the experimental group was pulled out of class for thirty minutes per day. During this time, the students were given activities tailored to stimulate specific types of brain development that would create increased capacity to perform specific types of tasks. The control group received no extra instruction other than their normal classroom instruction.

The grade equivalent gains for the control group and experimental group are shown in Table 7 below. The experimental group had significant growth in Reading Comprehension and Math Procedures. These results showed over one year’s gain for the experimental group when compared to the control group in these two assessments mentioned above.

There was a .7 grade equivalent gain in the Reading Vocabulary, but there was no gain for the experimental group in the Math Problem Solving. The overall results were quite remarkable for the experimental group with an average grade equivalent gain of l.6 years.

Studies also show that the effects of Physio-Neuro training are long lasting. Students have continued to improve their academic and social skills with no additional special training.

Back to Research page