1

Multi-media intervention: effects on early literacy

Presenters: Iris Levin and Michal Schleifer

Development and Research Team: M. Schleifer, R. Levin, H. Shilton, T. Freund, I. Levin

CET (Center for Educational Technology) And Tel Aviv University

2

Early Literacy?Early Literacy?

• Early literacy: Skills related to recognition and use of written notation and written language that pave the way to later reading and writing acquisition.

• Alphabetic skills (letter knowledge, sound and letter retrieval of spoken words) are fundamental to acquiring word reading and spelling.

• Linguistic skills (vocabulary, morphology, discourse) facilitate mastering reading comprehension and written text production.

3

Contribution of early literacy Contribution of early literacy

• Level of early literacy predicts reading and spelling acquisition in primary grades.

– Prediction higher than IQ.

• Level of early literacy in kindergarten predicts also reading comprehension for at least 6 years later.

• Interventions promoting early literacy through storybook reading or training of alphabetic skills are effective.

4

• Cognitive, social and emotional factors in school lead to Mathew Effect: The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer (Stanovich, 1986).

• Students who enter G1 with advanced early literacy acquire easily reading and spelling; enjoy reading and writing; are successful in school.

• Students with poor early literacy find reading and writing acquisition frustrating; are required to read texts that are too hard for them; refrain from literate activities; are failing in school.

The mechanism underlying the The mechanism underlying the contributioncontribution

5

The effect of literacy-related programs on The effect of literacy-related programs on public media (TV)public media (TV)

• A distinction noted: (1) the effect of amount of exposure to TV (2) the effect of viewing instructional programs.

• Amount of exposure to TV: mixed results depending on age, programs, etc.

• Viewing instructional programs: “Between the Lions” - a series instructing literacy to K and G1. Viewers outperformed non-viewers on letter knowledge, phonemic awareness and reading. (Linebarger, Kosanic, Greenwood, & Doku (2004).

• Interactive public TV is a new paradigm of using TV for educational purposes. While theoretically it seems engaging and productive we found no study in the domain of literacy on its effect.

6

The general aim of our studyThe general aim of our study

• Two institutions collaborated in this study: Hop! and CET

– Hop! is the major nursery-preschool channel in Israel. Hop! is ranked as the 4th most viewed channel among 120 cable channels in Israel.

– CET - The Center for Educational Technology is a leading Israeli non-profit, non-governmental organization, dedicated to improving Israel's educational system. The organization's mission is the introduction of innovation, change and large-scale implementation of general educational initiatives and specifically of educational technology.

To examine whether a pedagogical project in kindergartenscan enhance the effects of instructional programs on public TV accessible at home.

7

The general design of the studyThe general design of the study

Hop! screened programs on language and literacy, and interactive TV short riddles, targeted to kindergartnersin Israel.

CET implemented a pedagogical project in 15 kindergartens. The project was aimed to enhance theeffects of the above public TV programs.

8

Design of assessmentDesign of assessment

• Assessment of the effects of CET project as a venue enhancing the public program, was carried out in the beginning and the end of the school year (7 months apart).

• Language and literacy tests were given to children in the 15 intervention kindergartens, and to children in 14 control kindergartens (matched on SES, city, educational policy, curriculum and level of literacy at the beginning of the school year).

9

Intervention (15 K) vs. control groups (14 Intervention (15 K) vs. control groups (14 K)K)

(N = 449) (N = 449)

• Children in the two groups had access to TV programs on literacy at home (Hop!).

• Only the children in the intervention group were involved in a pedagogical project delivered by the teachers in the kindergartens (CET).

• The two groups were recruited from low SES populations.

10

The cognitive constituentsThe cognitive constituents

• Alphabetic skills – letter knowledge, rhyming, sound and letter retrieval of spoken words, invented spelling, emergent word reading.

• Linguistic skills – Written language features in lexicon (literary words; synonyms, antonyms), morphology (e.g., passive voice) and discourse.

11

The Programs on literacy screened on The Programs on literacy screened on Public TV (Hop!)Public TV (Hop!)

• 40 programs, 15 minutes each, 5 times a week, in primetime (6 pm).

• 100 animated riddles, 1 minute each, 6-10 times a day as passages, Interactive TV technology.

12

The project in 15 kindergartners: The project in 15 kindergartners: Teachers’ training (CET)Teachers’ training (CET)

• Seven sessions of advanced studies, 4 hours each, in small groups of teachers (7-8 teachers).

• Content: The development of emergent literacy in 3-6 year olds; mastering the use of the intervention materials; guidance of parents in promoting literacy; using different genres as reading materials in kindergarten.

• Training in use of technology: use of email, of internet, of chat websites.

13

The project in 15 kindergartens: The project in 15 kindergartens: Internet and TVInternet and TV

• TV programs (40) viewed in Kindergarten, guided by the teacher (Hop!).

• An internet website with pedagogical games (CET).

14

The project in 15 kindergartens: The project in 15 kindergartens: traditional devices (CET)traditional devices (CET)

• Pictures of the Hebrew Alphabet.

• Games training alphabetic skills.

15

The project in 15 kindergartens: The project in 15 kindergartens: traditional devices (CET)traditional devices (CET)

• Posters training alphabetic and linguistic skills, and especially used to promote elaborated discourse.

16

The project in 15 kindergartens: The project in 15 kindergartens: Books (CET)Books (CET)

• Dictionary for young children.

• Activity books (e.g., for learning letter shapes, phonological awareness).

• Books with short stories (events in kindergarten; folk stories).

17

The project in 15 kindergartens: The project in 15 kindergartens: Material for the home (CET)Material for the home (CET)

• A workbook with activities for children and guidance for parents.

18

Major questions of researchMajor questions of research

• Can pedagogical project (in 15 kindergartens) delivered in school enhance the effects of instructional programs on public TV accessible at home?

Note: The project was adapted to the public programs in terms of materials, graphic designs, and content of instruction.

• Does the effect of project vary by domain? alphabetic vs. linguistic skills.

• Is the effect of the project depending on children’s demographic characteristics? mainstream vs. academically at risk and immigrants.

• What are the reactions of teachers and parents to the program (advantages, disadvantages, hardships).

19

• Alphabetic skills: letter naming; retrieval of initial sound; of final sound; of initial letter; of final letter.

• Linguistic skills: Vocabulary (antonyms); Morphology (pluralization).

• The tests were delivered on pretest and posttest (7 months apart) to children in the intervention and control kindergartens (N = 449).

• Parental questionnaire on (1) use of different venues at home (2) evaluation of the contribution of different venues to their child’s literacy (N = 95).

• Teacher’s open interviews: Evaluation of program.

AssessmentAssessment

20

Progress from pretest to posttestProgress from pretest to posttestintervention vs. control group: intervention vs. control group:

Alphabetic skillsAlphabetic skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Namingletters

Initialsound

Finalsound

Initialletter

Finalletter

Intervention

Control

MeanScore

21

Progress from pretest to posttestProgress from pretest to posttestintervention vs. control group: intervention vs. control group:

Linguistic skillsLinguistic skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Vocabulary Morphology

Intervention

Control

MeanScore

22

Progress from pretest to posttestProgress from pretest to posttestin intervention vs. control groups:in intervention vs. control groups:

different populationsdifferent populations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Mainstream Immigrants At risk

Intervention

Control

MeanScore

23

Parental interviews:Parental interviews:Reported use of different venues (N = 95)Reported use of different venues (N = 95)

• Parent-child jointly using workbook - 97%

• Watching programs on public TV - 87%

• Watching programs on a daily basis - 40%

• Playing in the interactive website - 84%

• Playing in the interactive website on a daily basis - 21%

24

Parental interviews:Parental interviews:Estimated contribution to child’sEstimated contribution to child’s

language and literacy (N = 95)language and literacy (N = 95)

• The entire intervention: 94% of parents reported it had “a big” or “a very big” contribution.

• Parent-child joint working in workbook: 94% of parents reported it had “a big” or “a very big” contribution.

• Playing in the interactive website: 89% reported it had “a big” or “a very big” contribution.

• Watching literacy programs on public TV: 80% reported it had “a big” or “a very big” contribution.

25

Parental interviews:Parental interviews:In their own voice (N = 95)In their own voice (N = 95)

“ Since this project started my child is progressing fast, identifies letters and almost reads. We are very satisfied. The project is a success … ”

“ This is a good program. It helped my boy. Thanks to theprogram he knows to spell words orally…and is wellprepared to grade 1. I am sorry that we did not have sucha program in the previous years … ”

“ It is good to have a program that involves the parentstoo … ”

26

Teachers interviews:Teachers interviews:in their own voice (N = 14)in their own voice (N = 14)

“ We promoted children’s literacy to an advanced level earlier this year. The ideas in the guidebook for teachersmade me invent new materials. The program increased the motivation to work harder and get higher achievements.It increased my responsibility concerning children’s achievements … ”

“ Though I worked on literacy in kindergarten for manyyears the program upgraded me and made me demandmore from the kids. Now I am computer-literate and can use the internet … ”

“ The contents were delivered in a game-like atmosphere. It was a delight for the entire class … ”

27

ConclusionsConclusions

• Focused intervention in kindergartens enhances the effects of instructional programs screened on public TV. This applies to alphabetic skills but not to linguistic skills.

• The effects are similar for low SES mainstream children, immigrants and children at academic risk.

• Low SES parents can become partners in promoting their children’s early literacy.

• Teachers and parents express high satisfaction.

Multi-media intervention: effects on early literacy

Dank u wel Dank u wel