Lexia® Core5® Reading is a technology-led adaptive literacy programme designed to help struggling Year 2 readers catch up with age-related expectations.
This study tested its impact on struggling readers in Year 2. Schools selected eight to sixteen eligible pupils to complete four to five 30-minute sessions each week for at least 12 weeks. Pupils worked independently through personalised activities, supported by teachers and teaching assistants using Lexia’s reporting tools and printable resources.
The evaluation tested whether the programme improved pupils’ overall reading proficiency, as well as specific reading skills: word identification, applying phonics, passage comprehension – compared with usual practice.
It was tested through a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trialAn RCT is used evaluate an educational programme by assigning settings to one of two groups: the intervention group, who receive the programme or the control group, who continue with business as usual. This ensures that any differences in outcomes can be confidently attributed to the programme, providing a robust estimate of the impact and contributing to the evidence for what works in improving educational outcomes. under everyday school conditions.
A previous EEF efficacy trial found that Lexia® Core® Reading improved children’s reading attainment by the equivalent of one additional month’s progress. These results have a high security rating: four out of five on the EEF padlock scale.
Children eligible for free school meals (FSM) made two additional months’ progress, and all pupils gained an extra month in comprehension and fluency, skills important for later reading.
Due to these promising results, the larger trial was designed to test Lexia at scale, in real-world conditions.
- Struggling readers in schools delivering Lexia made two additional months’ progress in reading, on average, compared with pupils of similar attainment in comparison schools. This finding has a high security rating, which means we have confidence in it.
- Struggling readers eligible for free school meals in schools delivering Lexia also made two additional months’ progress. However, this finding is less secure because it was based on a smaller group of pupils.
- The analysis also looked at the programme’s impact on different areas measured by the assessment. Pupils made two months’ additional progress in word identification, applying phonics and passage comprehension, but no additional progress was observed in oral fluency.
- The evaluation also found that pupils who used Lexia more than the minimum recommended amount tended to make greater progress.
- Further exploratory analysis suggested that pupils with stronger reading skills (although still classed as struggling readers by their schools) at the start of the trial, and those without special educational needs and disabilities, tended to make more progress than pupils who started out with weaker reading skills or who had these needs. These findings are based on smaller numbers of pupils and should be treated with caution.
- Exploratory analysis also suggested that struggling readers with English as an Additional Language (EAL) made three additional months’ progress in reading – more than struggling readers overall. However, small pupil numbers mean we cannot be confident that Lexia closes the gap for this group specifically.
- The implementation and process evaluationAn IPE is used to understand how and why an intervention has (or has not) been successful. Data is analysed to explore programme quality, reach, adaptation and differentiation, as well as setting fidelity and responsiveness to the trial design. found that Lexia was relatively easy to deliver where schools already had the right technology in place (laptops, headphones and internet access), with strong training from Lexia and commitment from school staff helping delivery run smoothly.
This evaluation provides strong evidence that Lexia® Core® Reading helps Year 2 readers make faster progress through personalised online practice in phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, combined, alongside support from teachers and teaching assistants.
The estimated impact on children eligible for free school meals was similar to the overall result, suggesting the programme could be a good investment for Pupil Premium spend. However, this finding is based on a smaller number of pupils and carries a lower security rating than the overall result.
Overall, the positive findings and high security rating mean that schools should feel confident that Lexia is a credible option for supporting struggling readers in Year 2.
Most schools found Lexia relatively straightforward to deliver, particularly where laptops, headphones and reliable internet were already available. Schools without this technology should factor in the time and investment needed to put it in place.
Some findings, including those relating to pupils with SEND, EAL pupils, and pupils using Lexia beyond the minimum recommended amount, are based on smaller samples. Further research would help confirm whether these patterns hold.