An ever-growing call for the use of evidence-based practice has come up against the logistical hurdles of a lack of resources and expertise, particularly in rural schools that work with historically underserved students. Although integrated learning systems (ILSs)—stable and likely requiring fewer resources than personnel—do not offer a complete solution to this problem, they may serve as a useful resource, particularly for milder literacy deficits. And yet, there is a surprising lack of empirical research on their effectiveness, particularly contemporary programs. This study examines the effectiveness and efficiency of two popular ILSs, Lexia and iStation, both of which use a blended model of computer and traditionally delivered instruction, and compares them against business-as-usual (BAU) conditions across a variety of outcomes. Results suggest both programs resulted in meaningful growth across an academic year of implementation, although generally no more so than that observed in the BAU condition. However, Lexia yielded the highest level of instructional efficiency. That is, despite comparable growth across conditions, Lexia required less staff time to implement per student participant.

越来越多的人要求采用循证实践，这与缺乏资源和专业知识的后勤障碍形成了鲜明的对比，特别是在与历史上服务不足的学生一起工作的农村学校中。尽管集成学习系统（ILS）稳定且可能需要的资源比人员少，但不能完全解决此问题，但它们可以作为有用的资源，特别是对于读写能力较弱的人。然而，令人惊讶的是，缺乏关于其有效性的实证研究，特别是当代程序。这项研究考察了Lexia和iStation这两种流行的ILS的有效性和效率，两者都使用计算机和传统上交付的指令的混合模型，并将它们与各种结果中的常规业务（BAU）条件进行比较。结果表明，这两个计划在整个实施学年中都产生了有意义的增长，尽管通常不超过在BAU条件下观察到的增长。但是，Lexia的教学效率最高。也就是说，尽管在各种情况下都有可比的增长，但Lexia减少了每位学生参与者实施员工所需的时间。