Talk:Fast ForWord/Archive 1

Archive 1

comments

Between September 2006 and March 2007, this webpage has been edited from a rather brief article to the point where it now reads like an infomercial for Fast ForWord (FFW), with lush laudatory language being used to extol the efficacy of FFW and the eminence of its creators. Some examples:

"a family of reading-intervention software products that build learning capacity by applying neuroscience principles to strengthen cognitive skills."

"these products create fast, effective, and enduring results that improve users’ reading and learning abilities." (stated without references)

"The scientists discovered that by using this acoustically modified speech technology in an intensive, adaptive product, students could build a wide range of critical language and reading skills such as phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, decoding, syntax, grammar, and other skills that had previously been inaccessible to them"

The earlier entry provided pointers to critical evidence that would question the effectiveness of the product. This material has either been edited out (in the case of the Rouse study) or glossed over with (citation-free) claims that the results have been obsoleted (in the case of the Borman study).

References to the findings of neutral organizations [1] that concluded that FFW was not established as effective have also been edited out.

So... the question is: Who did this editing, and why?

Was it done by individuals who have a financial tie to the Scientific Learning Corporation, which manufactures Fast ForWord?

At least a few of the recent edits seem as though they may originate from the company. (E.g., "john@neuron.ie", assuming the author's name is correctly listed: www.Neuron.ie is a website connected to Scientific Learning Corp). Another contributor has a login name that resembles the name of a senior manager of the company, whose contributions are lauded on the current webpage. Of course, it cannot be known for sure who these writers are.

However, the integrity of Wikipedia would seem to require that people with a financial stake in the contents of a page should not be determining what is said about it.

If officers of Scientific Learning Corp, or anyone else with a vested financial interest in the public perception of this product, are editing these pages, I call upon them to stop doing so, and to respect the neutrality that is the Wikipedia vision.

I intend to write some new material that will provide what I believe to be a more balanced coverage of the topic. Hopefully others with a neutral perspective can add to this and produce a useful entry.

Note: the present writer has no financial interest in Scientific Learning Corp or in any of its competitors, and no financial or professional interest in establishing the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of any particular approach to reading disorders. Moreover, the present writer will be happy to allow Wikipedia editors to verify this fact, if so requested.

RR

Nov. 14/08 on this date I thought this article was extremely well written, informative and objective. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.86.166 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Dec 12 Edits

The edits of Dec 12 were not encyclopaedic, and not representative of the Wikipedia process. This note cannot hope to be comprehensive on how to become representative, except to note that Wikipedia lists an awful lot of help on how to edit its pages. Please see WP:5P. The page needs to be consistent with NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY references on Fast ForWord. Some references are better than others based on their reliability. In other words, you cannot state on this page what YOU think Fast ForWord is about. You need to state what published, reliable, neutral third parties have stated about what Fast ForWord is about. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whomever is updating the Fast ForWord page on Wikipedia is posting only half the story to show what that person thinks of Fast ForWord. The current posting are more acurrate and neutral to show the whole stroy and reference more studies (Third Party) than the two that have been posted of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainplasticity (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it. The encyclopedia is intended to represent "third party" references on a topic. Scientific Learning is a first party reference for Fast ForWord - it is the manufacturer. The page needs to describe Fast ForWord as it is represented by verifiable neutral third parties. The page as I reverted it includes references, both positive and negative, in the scientific peer-reviewed literature. This is appropriate. Deleting the entire page and replacing it only with references at Scilearn.com is inappropriate. If you have content to add, it should INCLUDE RELIABLE VERIFIABLE THIRD PARTY references, and should not remove references material from others unless it is superceded (ie: a better source is found, or there is reason to believe an existing source is either not neutral or not reliable). And although a link to the manufacturer is appropriate, the manufacturer's marketing materials should not be used to describe Fast ForWord. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising your product (or scilearn's product). --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Article accuracy and clarity

The efficacy studies given the most coverage in the article--Borman, 2009, and Rouse & Krueger, 2004--evaluate an outdated version of the Fast ForWord products that Scientific Learning no longer sells or supports. Numerous improvements have been made to the products in the years since the studies were conducted, raising questions regarding the relevance of these studies to the supported versions of the products currently in use. For example, students may now use Fast ForWord Language v2 for as little as 30 minutes per day rather than the 100 minutes per day protocol used in these studies that made adherence problematic for some students (e.g., http://www.scilearn.com/products/fast-forword-language-series/language/ --click on the How It Works tab for current protocols). The Efficacy section might more neutrally begin with the most relevant research--those studies that evaluate current versions of the software. For research studies discussed, the article should cite the product version evaluated and if the version is no longer current, this fact should be clearly indicated.

Nwiesen (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Efficacy section POV

Article neutrality could be improved by removing the italicized text in the following sentence and including a discussion of the positive results reported from the randomized designs mentioned: "While there have been several positive results reported with Fast Forword from randomized designs, these do not appear to constitute randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a reading intervention for "garden-variety" reading problems encountered in a school." Efficacy of the products is independent of any perceived marketing criteria--e.g., "garden variety reading problems encountered in a school." The paragraph that follows the questionable sentence cites one positive randomized design study, but the others are omitted. The omission appears to give undue weight to studies that do not find positive effects.

Nwiesen (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Considerations around the Borman Study

Inclusion of the following considerations would provide more balanced information to readers evaluating the significance of the study results:

[Previously noted: The study itself was conducted in 2000-2001, and study participants used the products that were available at that time. Those products have subsequently been upgraded or replaced by newer products. (See http://www.scilearn.com/products for a complete listing of current products. Fast ForWord Language v2 replaces Fast ForWord Language, referenced in the study as "Fast ForWord Language elementary version" and Fast ForWord Literacy replaces Fast ForWord Middle & High School, referenced in the study as "Fast ForWord Language middle-high school version".)]

The Borman paper focuses on the results of their intent-to-treat analysis. However, the paper also describes several parallel analyses, with somewhat inconsistent results. For example, the intent-to-treat analysis includes observations that the authors describe as “highly influential outliers… [that are] not credible… because [the students] did not take seriously the end-of-school-year posttest.” This analysis showed no statistically significant effect from Fast ForWord use. However, when the outliers were excluded, Borman et al report that the 7th grade Fast ForWord participants had statistically higher reading comprehension gains than the control group (with a moderate effect size of 0.21).

Furthermore, the study’s intent-to-treat analysis does not control for implementation fidelity. Yet Borman et al. concluded (on the basis of a second analysis) that program participation had a significant effect on learning; in other words, they found that students who actually used the software had significant benefits, whereas students with little exposure to the software showed little benefit.

Nwiesen (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Borman study is published. If there are third party published critiques of the study outside of Wikipedia then these critiques should be referenced, and the critiques should be referred to on the Fast ForWord page. If these critiques are not published, but valid, you will need to publish them elsewhere before they will be included on a Wikipedia page. The same is true of the Rouse and Krueger study. Critiques of these studies are original research. Wikipedia pages summarize published original research, but do not include new original research not published elsewhere. WP:NOR --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

{{Template:Request edit}}

Okay, I see your points. Please consider making the following edits instead, which do not rely on original research--or if you are okay with me making the edits (I am an employee of Scientific Learning), just let me know and I'm happy to do so.

Paragraph currently reads:

A second, and larger, randomized study was carried out by Geoffrey D. Borman, now at the University of Wisconsin School of Education, and colleagues [5]. These investigators studied 415 second and seventh graders performing far below national reading standards. Students randomly assigned to receive Fast ForWord treatment did not show statistically significant improvement in most of the reading measures examined, although there were a few small gains for certain subgroups, and a significant fraction of students with the lowest language test scores dropped out. This paper appeared in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis in March 2009.

I am requesting that it be changed to the following:

A second, and larger, randomized study was carried out by Geoffrey D. Borman, now at the University of Wisconsin School of Education, and colleagues [5]. These investigators studied 415 second and seventh graders performing far below national reading standards. Students randomly assigned to receive Fast ForWord Language treatment did not show statistically significant improvement in most of the reading measures examined, although there were a few small gains for certain subgroups, and a significant fraction of students with the lowest language test scores dropped out. The study authors concluded that "the Fast Forword Language program did not, in general, help students in these eight schools improve their language and reading comprehension outcomes" (Borman 2009, p. 100). However, in their discussion they noted that the "supplementary analyses, which examined the causal effects of participaton, revealed that when the middle school teachers and students remained committed and more faithfully achieved the completion standards set by Scientific Learning Corporation, the students exhibited statistically significant improvements in reading comprehension. Although evidence from this study and from the study conducted by Rouse and Krueger (2004) suggests that the demanding Fast ForWord training regimen can be difficult to schedule and implement in school-based settings, our results provide some evidence for seventh graders to suggest that when it is successfully carried out, students' literacy outcomes may improve rather dramatically" (Borman 2009, p. 99).

Thank you-- Nwiesen (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After waiting a couple of days and receiving no feedback, I consulted on the editor assistance page and was advised by two editors to make the edit myself, so I am going ahead with this change. Nwiesen (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nwiesen (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Considerations around the Rouse & Krueger study

Inclusion of the following considerations would provide more balanced information to readers evaluating the significance of the study results:

This study applied an “intent-to-treat” formula comparing data from two groups of children. One group included the students initially assigned to the Fast ForWord Language treatment group, the rest of the students were included in the control group. Several of the children in the treatment group did not use Fast ForWord products at all, and others participated minimally. Conversely, some of the students in the control group did use Fast ForWord products. This was surprising since the premise of the research study was to evaluate the differences between students who used the products, and students who did not. Given these issues, the results from this study can only provide an estimate of the value of Fast ForWord Language software and only within the limits of a school setting where implementation quality is low or not controlled.

Related to these results the authors concluded “... they do not indicate whether [Fast ForWord] is effective for those who show up and actually train on [Fast ForWord] as well as for those students who complete the program as advised by the [Scientific Learning Corporation].” The authors did add in a footnote that, “The effect sizes for those who trained at least 90 days and completed at least 80% of the exercises suggest larger effects of actually completing the program.

Nwiesen (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV & Currency in References

NPOV could be improved by including in the references section the following 3rd-party studies showing positive effects from Fast ForWord products:

Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J.D.E., Deutsch, G.K., Tallal, P., & Temple, E. (2007). Neural correlates of rapid auditory processing are disrupted in children with developmental dyslexia and ameliorated with training: An fMRI study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 295-310. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/01uh6p4066615h77/

Schultz Center for Teaching & Leadership (2009). Fast ForWord Longitudinal Impact Study. Jacksonville, FL. http://www.schoolcio.com/showarticle/21988

Stevens, C., Fanning, J., Coch, D., Sanders, L., & H Neville (2008). Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: Electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Brain Research, 1205, 55-69. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYR-4RW439M-3&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F18%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1184621800&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c1efba2fee9846f5d472c3a3ef553d2a

Temple E., Deutsch GK, Poldrack RA, Miller SL, Tallal P, Merzenich MM, Gabrieli JDE. (2003) Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100 (5):2860-2865. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/5/2860.full

These studies are as current as, or more current than, existing references.

Nwiesen (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not read all the aforementioned studies. At least two of them, however, are definitely not 3rd party ie: Paula Tallal, Russ Poldrack, Steve Miller, and Gail Deutsch (and probably a few others) were employees of Scientific Learning at the time the work was done. They can still be included in Wikipedia pages because they are in peer-review journals. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me understand what is allowed. I will add these references.

Nwiesen (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on good sources is at WP:SOURCES. Mainstream publishers of third party content are generally considered good (ie: mainstream newspapers). Scientific peer reviewed content is great, better if it is in review form rather than original research because reviews take multiple original articles and synthesize them. FIrst party content is rarely used if third party content is available ie: Scientific Learning's website should not be referenced for the efficacy of Fast ForWord. The real key is to keep the content closely reflecting what solid neutral third party sources say. If you work for Scientific Learning your editing of this page may make that impossible. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity about "Fast ForWord"

The current "Fast ForWord family of products" includes the following 11 products: Fast ForWord Language Basics, Fast ForWord Language v2, Fast ForWord Language to Reading v2, Fast ForWord Literacy, Fast ForWord Literacy Advanced, Fast ForWord Reading Prep, Fast ForWord Reading 1, Fast ForWord Reading 2, Fast ForWord Reading 3, Fast ForWord Reading 4, Fast ForWord Reading 5. Many of the research studies have evaluated earlier versions of Fast ForWord Language or other products in the family of products (such as Fast ForWord Middle & High School, which is sometimes referred to as Fast ForWord Language for middle and high school). The summary section at the top of the article could be clearer about what "Fast ForWord" is. The current product family is outlined on the Scientific Learning website at http://www.scilearn.com/products. For each study referenced in the Efficacy of Fast ForWord section, the product(s) evaluated should be noted.

Nwiesen (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

I am requesting that the following sentences, which are unsourced and might damage the reputation of Scientific Learning Corporation and the Fast ForWord products, be removed from this article:

"Although the Fast ForWord programs were originally demonstrated to show statistically significant improvements in phonological awareness for children with slower than normal temporal processing, much debate exists over the generalizability of these effects to a broader range of children who are sub-par in their language skills."

"The efficacy of Fast ForWord for the broad population of children with reading problems--for which it is currently being marketed--has not been well established, and the most methodologically rigorous studies seem to call the efficacy into question."

Wikipedia's Verifiability page says, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page" (Burden of Evidence section). In accordance with conflict of interest guidelines (I am an employee of Scientific Learning), I am requesting help from the Wikipedia community in making this edit. Thank you. Nwiesen (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done as per request to be done by unrelated editor..they were not sourced !..tks for taking the time to wait for an outside editor in this case...Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I missed one earlier along the same lines:

"While there have been several positive results reported with Fast ForWord from randomized designs, these do not appear to constitute randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a reading intervention for "garden-variety" reading problems encountered in a school."

I am requesting that this sentence be removed on the same grounds--not sourced. Thank you. Nwiesen (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done...........Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be restoring those statements, with references. It is a poor editor who seeks to alter POV because the references, which are already in the article, are not closely juxtaposed with the statements. There are multiple peer review works published which support each of those statements. The intent of the page is NOT to be a marketing page for the Scientific Learning Corporation, but to reflect the content of reliable third party published material on Fast ForWord. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be best..they were removed dew to POV statements that were not referenced..Pls update with references...If you believe that referances were removed and then Statements deleted we should look into that further... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Content addition under "Non-randomized studies" heading

{{Template:Request edit}}

A longitudinal study was undertaken by the Schultz Center for Teaching & Leadership in partnership with Duval County Public Schools to determine "whether, and to what extent, participation in Fast ForWord over a period of time could be shown to have produced increased student gains on a state-mandated assessment of reading proficiency". The author’s analysis used developmental scale scores (DSS) in reading from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, as well as for the three-year period from 2005 – 2008. A study group of 5,219 students who used the Fast ForWord products was evaluated against a comparison group of 5,010 students who did not use the products, with care taken to match the demographic features of the groups as closely as possible. The study found that 1) both the annual gains and the cumulative gains across the three-year span were significantly higher for the Fast ForWord group than the comparison group; 2) the subgroups that showed the highest gains were fourth and fifth graders, girls, and students without disabilities; 3) 52% of the Fast ForWord group achieved expected multi-year growth gains as compared to 36.1% of the comparison group, and these results were found to be statistically significant. The authors concluded, “it is clear that Fast ForWord has been successful at accelerating the reading progress made by struggling readers. It is also evident that schools generally implemented the program consistently and in a fashion that was faithful to the instructional design intended.” The authors also noted that students who completed 2-3 products on the system achieved optimum gains.

The reference to appear under "Further reading" would be:

Fast ForWord Longitudinal Impact Study. Schultz Center for Teaching & Leadership. 2009. Retrieved 2010-02-17.

Thank you for your consideration. Nwiesen (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Are References and Further Reading Sections Reversed?

It seems as though the references section should contained the numbered references from the article and the further reading section should have additional reading that is not necessarily referred to in the article. I am not quite sure how to change them, though. Does anyone agree, and if so, can you point me to a resource for how to do this?

Thanks. --Nwiesen (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fast ForWord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124030246/http://ies.ed.gov:80/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/fastfw/index.asp to http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/fastfw/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623041814/http://www.ers.princeton.edu/workingpapers/5ers.pdf to http://www.ers.princeton.edu/workingpapers/5ers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Below are proposed changes to increase the information on this entry about available research on the Fast ForWord program.

1. Create a section header titled "Research & Efficacy"

2. Move sentence - "There is no evidence that Fast ForWord is effective in treating children's reading or oral learning challenges.[2][3]” - to be first sentence under "Research & Efficacy"

3. Below is a list of peer-reviewed research that I suggest be added to the page to present readers with a broader scope of the available research on the program. Since Fast ForWord deals with multiple areas of learning improvement, I will leave it to other editors to decide how to work in the findings of the research to bolster this page.

   a. Positive Effects:
       i. Meta Analysis: Ylinen, S. & Kujala, T. (2015). Neuroscience illuminating the influence of auditory or phonological intervention on language-related deficits. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. (Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330793/) 
      ii. Language and Auditory Processes: Heim, S., Keil, A., Choudhury, N., Thomas Friedman, J. & Benasich, A. (2013). Early gamma oscillations during rapid auditory processing in children with a language-learning impairment: Changes in neural mass activity after 
          training. Neuropsychologia, 51, 990-1001. (Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393213000171) 
     iii. Auditory Plasticity: Krishnamurti, S., Forrester, J., Rutledge, C., & Holmes, G.W. (2013). A case study of the changes in the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response associated with auditory training in children with auditory processing disorders. International Journal of 
          Pediatric Otorhinoloaryngology, 77, 594-604. (Link: http://www.ijporlonline.com/article/S0165-5876(13)00008-6/fulltext) 
      iv. Autism and Auditory Functions: Russo, N.M., Hornickel, H., Nicol, T., Zecker, S., Kraus, N. (2010) Biological changes in auditory function following training in children with autism spectrum disorders.  Behavioral and Brain Functions 6(60), 1-8. 
          (Link: https://behavioralandbrainfunctions.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-9081-6-60)
       v. Nevada Department of Education: Nixon, G. (2010) “Nevada DOE calls Fast ForWord ‘High Gain’”. Gemm Learning. (Link: https://www.gemmlearning.com/blog/learning_science/nevada-boe-calls-fast-forword-high-gain/)
      vi. Auditory Attention: Stevens, C., Fanning, J., Coch, D., Sanders, L., & H Neville (2008). Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: Electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Brain 
          Research, 1205, 55-69. (Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2426951/)
  b. Mixed Results:
      i. Phoenemic Awareness and Reading Skills: Loeb D.F., Gilliam R.B., L. Hoffman, J. Brandel, and J. Marquis (2009). The Effects of Fast ForWord Language on the Phonemic Awareness and Reading Skills of School-Age Children With Language Impairments and Poor Reading Skills. American 
         Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 376-387. (Link: https://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=1757561)
  c. No Effects: 
      i. B.K. Given, J.D. Wasserman, S.A. Chari, K. Beattie, and G.F. Eden (2009). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain Language, 106(2), 83-97. (Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657684)

Penguinparty01 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Penguinparty01

Thanks for posting the request. We do not do original research in Wikipedia, and assembling a list of studies like this and characterizing them, is just that sort of thing.

What we do here is summarize reliable sources. For content about whether Fast ForWord works or not, we look for a source per WP:MEDRS - a recent literature review published in a good quality journal is the ~kind~ of source we summarize. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

First set of some proposed additions. These suggested edits below focus on Fast ForWord use and reception in various schools in the U.S.

Add a new Section Title: Use and Reception

The Fast ForWord program has been implemented in schools across the U.S. with mixed reception from educators and administrators.

For instance, in 2011, an employee at Merrillville Intermediate School in Indiana claimed the school “experienced some positive results” and that some students “really benefitted” from the use of the Fast ForWord program.

In 2015, a teacher at St. Frances Cabrini Elementary School in Alexandria, Louisina reported that her fourth grade students made “years of progress.”.

In 2017, the superintendent of St. Mary Parish Schools in Louisiana claimed that use of the Fast ForWord program improved the school’s state assessment scores.

The deputy superintendent for Corpus Christi Independent School District in Corpus Christi, Texas also claimed that the use of Fast ForWord program resulted in “gains in students’ skills and in closing performance gaps.”

References

Redhead537 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That is just advertising. WP is not here for advertising. Please read WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

These additions were proposed because they’re providing context on the use of the program. Surely readers would benefit to know that some schools have implemented Fast ForWord. How can information be added about where Fast ForWord has been implemented that is encyclopedic and provides this context? Could we just say that it has been implemented in schools around the country with mixed reception and cite a few examples? Redhead537 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

the proposed content is blatant effort to "sell" and worse is trying to shoehorn in efficacy claims via these endorsements. Please be aware that using WP for advertising is against policy (see WP:PROMO) and if you continue to abuse your editing privileges in this way, they will be restricted. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

New Proposed Additions

I wanted to propose some suggested edits to the page, but I recently realized that Jytdog had messaged me on my talk page about some pointers. Below are the suggested edits, but Jytdog, please feel free to send me some materials as you discussed.

In August 2010, the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Science provided a “What Works Clearinghouse” (WWC) Intervention Report analyzing 8 studies on Fast ForWord. The report found no discernible effects in alphabetics and reading fluency and potentially positive effects in general literacy and comprehension. In March 2013, another WWC report analyzed 9 studies and concluded that the overall the program has mixed effects on comprehension, positive effects on alphabetics, and no effects on reading fluency for beginning readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead537 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Forgot to sign this new comment, my apologies. Redhead537 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)