EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 2008 · 2011-05-13 · EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 ‐ 2008 Deborah

EVALUATIONOFTHEBETWEENTHELIONS

MISSISSIPPILITERACYINITIATIVE2007‐2008

DeborahL.Linebarger,Ph.D.

Children’sMediaLab

AnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationUniversityofPennsylvania

March19,2009

2|P a g e

2007‐2008

We would like to thank the talented and dedicated efforts of the staff and students in Mississippi and Pennsylvania who helped with this project including Cathy Grace, Stacey Callender, Nikki McCelleis, Jessamine Huffman, Beverly Willis, and Katie McMenamin. In addition, we would like to thank the children, families, teachers, directors, and staff at the child care centers where we were fortunate enough to work. Without their time, energy, and enthusiasm, this project would not have been completed. For additional information, please contact: Dr. Deborah L. Linebarger Director, Children’s Media Lab Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania 3620 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 215.898.7855 (lab) 215.898.2024 (fax) Email: [email protected]

3|P a g e

IntroductionSubstantialevidencedocumentsthesuccessoftheprogramBetweentheLionsinhelpingyoungchildrenacquireearlyliteracyskills,particularlythoseyoungchildrenwhomaybeat‐riskforreadingfailureduetoeconomicdisadvantage.Youngchildrenwhowatchthisprogramhavedemonstratedconsistentgainsacrossalphabetknowledge,phonologicalawareness,phonemicawareness,andfluencythroughsimpleexposure(Linebarger,Kosanic,Greenwood,Doku,2004;Uchikoshi,2006)andexposurecombinedwithclassroommaterials(Linebarger,2006;Prince,Grace,Linebarger,Atkinson,&Huffman,2001).ThestudypresentedhereextendstheresearchontheuseofBetweentheLions,supplementalclassroommaterials,andamentoringprogramtoanewsampleofteachers,classrooms,andchildren.

• Hypothesis1:Thetreatmentgroupwouldoutperformthecontrolgroupatthepost‐test.• Hypothesis2:Themaintenancegroupwouldoutperformthecontrolgroupatthepost‐test.• Hypothesis3:Thereshouldbenoor,atmost,aslightdifferencebetweenthetreatmentgroup

andthemaintenancegroup.

InterventionChildcareclassroomswerecategorizedintothreegroups:Treatment,Maintenance,andControl.

• 9TreatmentclassroomswereencouragedtouseBetweentheLionsintheirclassroomsandeachreceivedasetoftheBetweentheLionsPreschoolLiteracyInitiativeclassroommaterialsaswellastrainingandmentoringdescribedbelow,beginninginNovember2007followingthecollectionofpre‐testdata.Forbothteachersandstudents,thiswastheirfirstyearofparticipationusingBetweentheLions.

• 9MaintenanceclassroomshadpreviouslybeenTreatmentclassrooms,sotheseteachershadreceivedtheBetweentheLionsclassroommaterials,training,andmentoringinapreviousschoolyear.Thechildrenintheseclassroomshadnotpreviouslybeenexposedtotheintervention.TheteacherswereencouragedtocontinueusingBetweentheLionsintheirclassroomsoncethepre‐testdatawascollected.ThreeoftheoriginalmaintenanceclassroomswerenotincludedinthisstudybecauseintwooftheclassroomstheoriginalteachersleftandthenewteachershadnotpreviouslybeeninTreatmentclassroomsthatreceivedtraining/mentoring.AthirdMaintenanceclassroomwaspulledfromtheprojectbecausetheteacherstoppedusingtheBetweentheLionsmaterialsandwasreplacedbyanotherclassroomthathadnotbeenaTreatmentclassroomthepreviousyear.

4|P a g e

• 13ControlclassroomswerenotprovidedwithanyBetweentheLionsmaterials,training,ormentoring,butcouldopttoreceivethematerialsandtrainingfollowingthecollectionofpost‐testdata.TheycouldalsobeputonthelisttobeenteredintotherandomselectionprocesstobecomeTreatmentclassroomsthefollowingyear.

ClassroomMaterialsTreatmentandMaintenanceclassroomsreceivedthefollowingmaterials:

• BetweentheLionsPreschoolLiteracyInitiativeLessonPlans:Aseriesof30theme‐basedweeklylessons,organizedinto5units,withideasandstrategiesforconductingdailyliteracyactivitiesLessonsincludeideasforactivitycentersalongwithwhole‐andsmall‐groupactivities.Additionallessoncomponentsincludeaweeklyplanner,suggestionsforsettinguptheclassroom,AFamilyLetter,theme‐relatedsongsandpoems,andarecommendedbooklist.ThelessonsfollowascopeandsequencedesignedtoaddressallkeyearlyliteracyskillsandarealignedwithstatepreschoolstandardsandHeadStartframeworks.

• DVDs:EachunitisaccompaniedbyaDVDwithsixBetweentheLionsepisodeseditedspecificallyforpreschooluse,foratotalof30episodesplusbonustracks.

• Books:Eachlessonincludesatleasttwoaccompanyingbooks;thediversecollectionof61tradebooksincludesfolktales,contemporarystories,rhymingbooks,alphabetbooks,conceptbooks,andnonfiction.

• SongandPoemCharts:Illustratedsongandpoemchartslinkedtothelessonsaidinteachingchildrenaboutconceptsofprintandthesoundsofspokenlanguage.

• AdditionalClassroomResources:Abinofadditionalmaterialsincludeslettercards,wordcards,picturecards,storyfiguresforaVelcroboard,magneticletters,lionpuppets,andotherbasicsuppliesforusewiththelessons.

TrainingandMentoringImmediatelyafterthepre‐testingiscompleted,teachersintheTreatmentclassroomsparticipateinfivehoursoftrainingprovidedbymentorsfromMississippiPublicTelevision.ThetrainingprovidesanoverviewoftheBetweentheLionscurriculummaterialsandstrategiesforsettinguptheirclassroomstoencourageliteracy.Teachersalsogainanunderstandingofhowthementorswillworkwiththemduringtheintervention.TeachersintheMaintenanceclassroomsarealsoinvitedtoattendthistraining.TeachersinTreatmentclassroomsreceivetwothree‐hourvisitsfromamentoreveryweek,for16weeks,foratotalof96hoursofmentoring.TeachersintheirfirstyearasaMaintenanceclassroomreceivetwothree‐hourvisitspermonthfor16weeks,foratotalof24hoursofmentoring.TeachersintheirsecondyearasaMaintenanceclassroomreceiveonethree‐hourvisitpermonthfor16weeks,foratotalof12hoursofmentoring.Thementorsguideteachersinsettingupandorganizingtheirclassrooms,modelBetweentheLionslessons,andprovidefeedbackonhowteacherscarryouttheselessons.After16weeks,thementorsdonotreturntotheclassroomsuntilpost‐testinghasbeencompleted.Atthepointofpost‐testing,mostteachershavecompleted17to20ofthe30lessons.Asaresult,theyhavenotcoveredalltheletters,andhavenotdevotedasmuchfocusoninitialsoundfluencyoron

5|P a g e

blendingbeginningandendingsoundsandwords,whicharethefocusoflaterunits.Afterpost‐testing,theTreatmentandMaintenanceclassroomscontinueusingtheBetweentheLionslessons.

MethodParticipantsTable1providesdetailedinformationaboutteacherandchildparticipants.TeachersandChildCareCentersThirty‐oneteachersandclassroomsin23differentchildcarecenterswererecruitedtoparticipateinthisstudy.Nearlyequalnumbersofclassroomswerematchedacrossthethreeconditionsusingteachereducation,classroomage,percentageofsubsidies,censusdataonpercentoffamilieslivinginpovertybyzipcode,andcentersize.Whiletherewasasystematicattempttomatchclassroomsacrossconditions,theresultspresentedinTable1indicatethatthereweredifferencesatthestartofthestudyassociatedwithcentersandclassrooms.

DroppedClassrooms.TwoteachersoriginallyintheMaintenanceconditionlefttheirrespectivecentersandwerenotreplacedwithteacherswhoweretrainedtousetheinterventionmaterials.Athirdteacherwhowasassignedtothecontrolconditionwasatacenterwhereotherclassroomswereinthetreatmentormaintenancegroups.Therewassubstantialevidencethatthisteacherimplementedtheinterventiondespitearequestnottodoso.DroppedCenters.Twochildcarecentersweredroppedfromtheoriginalsampleduetotheteacherchangesdescribedabove.

ChildrenTheoriginalsampleconsistedof319childrenattendingpreschoolsandchildcarecentersinMississippi.Ofthistotal,23childrenwhowereinthethreeclassroomsdescribedaboveweredroppedfromthefinalanalyses;therefore,thefinalsampleconsistedof296children(MeanAge=59.93months,SD=16.87months).Matchingbyclassroomcharacteristicsresultedin111childrenin9treatmentclassrooms,95childrenin9maintenanceclassrooms,and90childrenin13controlclassrooms.Justoverhalfofthechildrenwereboys(i.e.,53.3%).Childrenparticipatedintheassessmentsattheirchildcarecenters.All21centersservedchildrenwhowerepredominantlyfromeconomicallydisadvantagedbackgrounds.Nootherdemographicinformationwascollected.

1|P a g e

Table 1. Characteristics of the Sample ***p < .001; **p < 0.01; ** p < 0.0

1Threeclassroomsand23childrenweredroppedfromtheanalysesduetoeitherteacherchangesorimplementationofthecurriculuminacontrolclassroom.

Attribute Description All Treatment Maintenance Control InitialGroupDifferences

OriginalTotal EntireSample 319 RevisedTotal1 296 111 95 90

CenterCharacteristics

TotalNumber 23 7 9 7

%Subsidy 69.0% 67.9% 86.5% 55.8% F(2,293)=67.19***

ClassroomCharacteristics

TotalClassrooms 31 9 9 13

FOURS 156 53 30 73 F(2,153)=0.26,ns

MeanAge(months) 54.1 54.3 54.4 53.9 FIVES 140 58 65 17 F(2,137)=5.86**

MeanAge(months) 65.6 64.4 66.8 65.4

49.3%HS 57.9%HS 35.9%HS 60.4%HS Χ2=69.77***29.1%CDA/AA 13.7%CDA/AA 52.4%CDA/AA 17.1%CDA/AA

19.9%BA 23.2%BA 13.3%BA 22.5%BA

TeacherCharacteristics

Education

1.7%MA 5.3%MA 0MA 0MA BTLLessonsCompleted 13.18 18.35 23.98 0 F(2,293)=1075.48***

ChildCharacteristics

Gender53.4%boys

52.6%boys 47.8%boys 58.6%boys Χ2=2.35,ns

ChildAge 59.6months 62.8 56.1 59.6 F(2,293)=25.97***

7|P a g e

Measures

MeasureswereselectedordevelopedtoassesstargetedskillssupportedthroughtheBetweentheLionsLiteracyInitiativeandtoreflectthekeyearlyliteracyskillsasdescribedbyNeumanandRoskos(2005).Theseskillsarelanguagedevelopment,letterknowledge,phonemicawareness,andprintconventions.Normative,orstandardized,measurestappedintoeachofthesedomainsusingmultipleindices.

DemographicInformationChildrenandFamiliesChildren’sgenderanddatesofbirthwererecorded.TeachersandChildCareCentersTeachersprovidedinformationregardingtheiryearsofeducationandanydegreestheypossessed.Centersindicatedthepercentageofchildrenandfamiliesateachcenterwhoreceivedsubsidies.

IndicatorsoftheClassroomEnvironmentTheclassroomliteracyenvironmentwasexaminedusingtheEarlyLiteracyandLanguageClassroomObservationTool(ELLCO).TheELLCOmeasuredliteracyandlanguagepracticesandmaterialsinearlychildhoodclassroomsacross4components:theGeneralClassroomObservationandTeacherInterview;theLiteracyEnvironment;theLanguage,Literacy,andCurriculumAssessment;andtheLiteracyActivitiesRatingScale.

1. GeneralClassroomObservationandTeacherInterview:measuresorganization,contents,technology,andclassroomclimateandmanagement

2. LiteracyEnvironment:measuresavailability,content,anddiversityofreading,writing,andlisteningmaterials.

3. Language,Literacy,andCurriculumAssessment:measuresreadingandwritinginstruction,orallanguageuse,culturalsensitivity,andassessmentapproaches

4. LiteracyActivitiesRatingScale:measureshowmanytimesandforhowlongnineliteracybehaviorsoccurredintwocategories,BookReadingandWriting

IndicatorsofLanguageDevelopment

IGDIPictureNamingTask GeneralizedvocabularyknowledgewasevaluatedusingthePictureNamingTask,atoolthatmeasuredchildren’sexpressivelanguageknowledge(PNT,Missall&McConnell,2004).ThePNTisanIndividualGrowthandDevelopmentIndicator(IGDI)usedtotrackpreschoolers’vocabularyacquisitionona

8|P a g e

regularbasisovertime.Childrenwerepresentedwithimagesofobjectsfamiliartopreschoolersoneatatimeandaskedtonamethepicturesasfastaspossibleforoneminute.Categoriesofobjectsusedincludedanimals,food,people,householdobjects,gamesandsportsmaterials,vehicles,tools,andclothing.Psychometricpropertiesforthismeasurewereadequate.Specifically,alternateformsreliabilityrangedbetween.44and.78whiletest‐retestreliabilityoveratwo‐weekperiodwas.69.ConcurrentvalidityestimateswiththePeabodyPictureVocabularyTest–3rdEdition(Dunn&Dunn,2000)andwiththePreschoolLanguageScale–3(Zimmerman,Steiner,&Pond,1992)wereadequate,.53to.79.ThePNTwasalsosensitivetodevelopmentalstatusandgrowthovertime.Childrenidentified21.4picturesatthepretest(SD=6.7).Benchmarkingnormswereprovidedbytheauthors:scoresat59monthsaveraged16.97fortypicallydevelopingchildren;16.51forchildrenfromlowincomebackgrounds;and14.13forchildrenwithidentifieddisabilities(Missall&McConnell,2004).

IndicatorsofLetterKnowledge

PALS‐PreK‐AlphabetKnowledge ThePALSPreKAlphabetKnowledgeTask(Invernizzi,Sullivan,&Meier,2002)wasusedtoevaluatealphabetletterknowledge.ThedevelopersofthePALSincludedthreedifferenttasksthattappedintovariouscomponentsofletterknowledge:1)identificationofthe26UpperCaseletters;2)identificationofthe26LowerCaseletters;and3)identificationofthesoundsassociatedwith23lettersand3digraphs.Childrenarefirstpresentedall26UpperCaselettersinarandomorder.Tobeeligibletoproceedtothesecondtask,identificationofall26LowerCaseletters,thechildmustcorrectlyidentify16UpperCaseletters.TobeeligibletoproceedfromLowerCaseletterstoLetterSounds,thechildmustcorrectlyidentify9LowerCaseletters.Psychometricsareadequatewithreportedreliabilitiesrangingfrom.74to94.Withthistask,wederivedthreetypesofscores:1)thenumberoflettersorsoundsachildcouldcorrectlyidentify;2)thenumberofchildrenineachviewinggroupwhowereabletoidentifyanyLowerCaselettersorLetterSounds(i.e.,onlychildrenwhoreachedacertaincut‐offwereabletoproceedtoLowerCaselettersandLetterSounds);and3)fluencyscores(i.e.,thenumberofsecondsittooktoidentifyoneletterorsound).

1. NumberofLettersorSoundsCorrectlyIdentified.Thetotalnumberofuppercase,lowercase,andlettersoundswererecorded.

2. IdentificationofAnyLowerCaseNamesorLetterSounds.Childrenwerepresentedwiththesetasksiftheywereableto1)identify16ormoreUpperCaselettersand2)9ormoreLowerCaseletters.

3. FluencyScores.Children’sperformanceoneachofthe3subscales(i.e.,UpperCase,LowerCase,LetterSounds)wastimed.Then,thenumberoflettersorsoundsaccuratelyidentifiedwasdividedbythenumberofsecondsittookthechildtocompleteeachtask.Thisproducedaletterorsoundidentificationpersecondrate.AllchildrenwereadministeredtheUpperCasetask;therefore,allchildrenhadafluencyscoreassociatedwithUpperCaseLetterKnowledge.OnlythosechildreneligibletocompletetheLowerCaseLetterKnowledgeandtheLetterSoundstaskswereincludedinthoseanalyses.

9|P a g e

IndicatorsofPhonemicAwareness

IGDIInitialSoundsFluency TheDIBELSInitialSoundFluencytaskisanindividuallyadministeredandtimedmeasureofchildren’sabilitytorecognizeandproducetheinitialsoundinanorallypresentedword,acomponentofphonemicawareness.Theexaminerpresentsfourpicturestothechild,nameseachpicture,andthenasksthechildtoidentify(i.e.,pointtoorsay)thepicturethatbeginswiththesoundproducedorallybytheexaminer.Forexample,theexaminersays,"Thisissink,cat,gloves,andhat.Whichpicturebeginswith/s/?"andthestudentpointstothecorrectpicture.Thechildisalsoaskedtoorallyproducethebeginningsoundforanorallypresentedwordthatmatchesoneofthegivenpictures.Theexaminercalculatestheamountoftimetakentoidentify/producethecorrectsoundandconvertsthescoreintothenumberofinitialsoundscorrectinaminute.

PALS‐PreK–AlphabetKnowledgeAdescriptionofthistaskwasdetailedabove.OnlytheindicesthatwerederivedfromthismeasuretorepresentPhonologicalandPhonemicAwarenessdiscussedbelow.

1. IdentificationofAnyLetterSounds.ThepercentageofchildrenineachviewinggroupwhowereeligibletotaketheLetterSoundstaskwasrecorded.

2. NumberofSoundsCorrectlyIdentified.Thenumberoflettersoundsachildwasabletoidentifycorrectlywasrecorded.

3. LetterSoundsFluency.Children’sperformanceontheLetterSoundssubscalewastimed.Then,thenumberofitemsaccuratelyidentifiedwasdividedbythenumberofsecondsittookthechildtocompleteeachtask.Thisproducedasoundidentificationpersecondrate.OnlythosechildreneligibletoattempttheLetterSoundstaskwereincludedinthoseanalyses.

IndicatorsofPrintConventions

PrintandStoryConceptsTasksThisassessmentwasadaptedfromtheHeadStartFACESSurvey(informationavailableonline:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/instruments/child_instru02/language_story.html)toexaminechildren’sunderstandingofbasicstoryconceptsincludingbookknowledge,printknowledge,andreadingcomprehension.Bookknowledgeexaminedchildren’sfamiliaritywithstorybooksandprintconventionssuchaswherethefrontofthebookis,wheretobeginreading,anddifferentiatingprintfrompictures.Printknowledgeexaminedchildren’sknowledgeofthemechanicsofreadingincludingreadingfromlefttoright,toptobottom,andword‐by‐wordpointing.Readingcomprehensionmeasuredchildren’sknowledgeofastoryplotandrequiredthemtoanswerquestionsbasedonpresentedstorycontent(e.g.,whatissaidgoodnighttoinGoodnightMoon)andwellastogenerateinferences(e.g.,howdoesacharacterfeel)andtomakepredictions(e.g.,whatdoyouthinkhappensnextinthisstory).Differentbookswereusedateachtestingpoint:GoodnightMoonbyMargaretWiseBrownwasusedatPre‐TestandWhere’sMyTeddy?byJezAlboroughwasusedatPost‐Test.Whilemostquestionswerebasedonascoringsystemof(0)incorrectand(1)correct,someofthecomprehensionquestionswereworthupto3points.Eachprintandstoryconstructwassummedtoformthreescoresforanalysis:bookknowledge,printknowledge,andreadingcomprehension.

10|P a g e

CombinedEarlyLiteracySkills

GetReadytoRead!ScreenerThisscreener,consistingof20items,assessedprintknowledge(i.e.,knowledgeofthelettersofthealphabet);bookknowledge(recognitionofhowbooksworkincludingthedifferencebetweenwordsandimages);phonologicalawareness(i.e.,understandingthatspokenwordsarecomposedofindividualsounds);phonics(i.e.,recognitionofthesoundslettersmake);andwriting(i.e.,understandinghowtextshouldlook:lettersgroupedtogetherintowords).Eachitemrequiredthechildtoselectaresponsefromagroupoffourpictures(orfourletters,words,etc.).Example:“Thesearepicturesofabook.Findtheonethatshowsthebackofthebook.”Example:“Findtheletterthatmakesatuhsound.”Example:“Somechildrenwrotetheirname.Findtheonethatiswrittenthebest.”Childrenweregivenascoreofa(1)foreverycorrectanswerprovidedanda(0)foreveryincorrectanswerprovided,withamaximumscoreof20points.Scoresgreaterthan11arepredictiveofreadingsuccessby2ndgrade.

AnalyticalApproachRepeated‐measuresAnalysisofCovariance(ANCOVA)isaprocedurethatcanbeusedtostatisticallycontrolforinitialgroupdifferenceswhenevaluatinginterventioneffectsonoutcomemeasures.Inthesemodels,bothInterventionGroupandChild’sAgewereincludedasfactors.Threecovariateswereconstructedtoextractthevarianceassociatedwithvariablesthatwerefoundtorelatetotheoutcomesofinterestorthatsignificantlyvariedbygroup.Theclassroomliteracyenvironment,theteacher’seducation,andachild’spre‐testperformancewereusedascovariatesintheanalyses.Whenmultipletestswereconductedforeachsetofoutcomes,BonferroniadjustmentsofthealphalevelweremadetoreduceType1errorrates(i.e.,findingasignificantdifferencewhenonedoesnotexist).Fortheseanalyses,onlysignificanteffectsassociatedwithGrouparereportedinthetext(i.e.,Group;WavebyGroup,AgebyGroup).Alongwiththestatisticalsignificancetests,effectsizesarealsoreported.FactorDetails

Group:ThisBetween‐Subjectsfactortestedformeandifferencesamongthethreepossibleinterventiongroups.Therewere3levelsassociatedwiththisfactor.

• TheTREATMENTgroupiscomposedofchildren,teachers,andclassroomswhoparticipatedintheBTL‐LIinterventionforthefirsttime.Therewere111childreninthisgroup.

• TheMAINTENANCEgroupiscomposedofchildren,teachers,andclassroomswhoalsoparticipatedintheBTL‐LIintervention;however,theteachershadpreviouslyreceivedinterventiontrainingandmentoringbetween1and3yearsprior.Therewere95childreninthisgroup.

• TheCONTROLgroupiscomposedofchildren,teachers,andclassroomswhodidnotparticipateinanyBTL‐LIinterventiontraining.Therewere90childreninthisgroup.

11|P a g e

Age:ThisBetween‐Subjectsfactortestsformeandifferencesamongdifferentagegroupsofchildren.Thereare2levelsassociatedwiththisfactor.

• TheFOURSgroupofchildreniscomposedof156childrenwhoarebetween46monthsand59months.Onaverage,childreninthisgroupwere54.1months(i.e.,4.5years;SD=3.7).

• TheFIVESgroupofchildreniscomposedof140childrenwhoarebetween60monthsand74months.Onaverage,childreninthisgroupwere65.6months(i.e.,5.0years;SD=3.8).

Wave:ThisWithin‐Subjectsfactortestsformeandifferencesassociatedwithgains(orlosses)frompretesttopost‐test.Thereare2levelsassociatedwiththisfactor.

• ThePRETESTwasadministeredpriortoparticipationinanyoftheinterventionmaterials.

• ThePOST‐TESTwasadministeredattheendofparticipationinanyoftheinterventionmaterials.

12|P a g e

Results

ELLCOClassroomEnvironment2007to2008FoursubscalesfromtheELLCOwereevaluatedforsignificantdifferencesacrossgroups.GeneralClassroomEnvironmentAllclassroomsimprovedfrompre‐testtopost‐test(Figure1),withtreatmentclassesshowingthemostimprovement.Maintenanceclassroomsstartedhigherandremainedatthatlevel2.Controlclassroomsdemonstratedslightgrowthfrompretesttopost‐test.TherewasalsoasignificantdifferencebyGroup3.

2 F(2, 30) = 4.73, p < .05, 3 F(2, 30) = 14.17, p < 0.001

13|P a g e

Figure1.GeneralClassroomEnvironmentSubscaleDifferencesbyGroupAcrossWave

14|P a g e

LiteracyEnvironmentAllclassroomsimprovedfrompre‐testtopost‐test(Figure2),withtreatmentclassesshowingthemostimprovement.Maintenanceclassroomsstartedhigherandremainedsoatthepost‐test4.Controlclassroomsdemonstratedslightgrowthfrompretesttopost‐test.Therewas

alsoasignificantdifferencebyGroup5. Language,Literacy,andCurriculumAllclassroomsimprovedfrompre‐testtopost‐test(Figure3),withtreatmentclassesimprovingmost.Maintenanceclassroomsstartedhigherandremainedsoatthepost‐test6.Controlclassroomsdemonstratedlittlegrowthfrompretesttopost‐test.TherewasalsoasignificantdifferencebyGroup7.

4 F(2, 30) = 4.73, p < 0.05 5 F(2, 30) = 14.17, p < 0.001 6 F(2, 30) = 6.64, p < 0.01 7 F(2, 30) = 24.33, p < 0.001

Figure2.LiteracyEnvironmentSubscaleDifferencesAcrossGroupbyWave

Thissubscaleisintendedasaninventoryoftheliteracy‐specificmaterialsfoundintheclassroom.Thereare

24itemsacross5conceptualdomains:BookArea;BookSelection;BookUse;WritingMaterials;and

WritingDisplays.

Thissubscaleisdesignedtoquantifyorallanguage

facilitation,thepresenceofbooks,diversityintheclassroom,connections

betweenhomeandschool,andapproachesto

assessment.materialsfoundintheclassroom.

Thereare24itemsacross5conceptualdomains:BookArea;BookSelection;BookUse;WritingMaterials;and

WritingDisplays.

Thissubscaleisintendedasaninventoryoftheliteracy‐specificmaterialsfoundintheclassroom.Thereare

24itemsacross5conceptualdomains:BookArea;BookSelection;BookUse;WritingMaterials;and

WritingDisplays.

15|P a g e

Figure3.Language,Literacy,andCurriculumSubscaleDifferencesbyGroupAcrossWave

16|P a g e

LiteracyActivitiesAllclassroomsimprovedfrompre‐testtopost‐test(Figure4),withtreatmentclassesimprovingmost.Maintenanceclassroomsstartedhigherandremainedsoatthepost‐test8(i.e.,thesegroupbywavedifferencesweremarginallysignificant).Controlclassroomsdemonstratedlittlegrowthfrompretestto

post‐test.Therewasalsoasignificantdifference

byGroup9.

ELLCOClassroomEnvironment2006to2008Figures5and6arebasedonasubsetof7teacherswhoweretrainedineither2005(n=3)or2006(n=4)toimplementtheBTLcurriculum.

8 F(2, 30) = 3.13, p < 0.06 9 F(2, 30) = 11.07, p < 0.001

Figure5.LiteracyEnvironmentOverTimefor7TrainedTeachers

Figure4.LiteracyActivitySubscaleDifferencesbyGroupAcrossWave

Thissubscaleisdesignedtoquantifyorallanguage

facilitation,thepresenceofbooks,diversityintheclassroom,connections

betweenhomeandschool,andapproachesto

assessment.materialsfoundintheclassroom.

Thereare24itemsacross5conceptualdomains:BookArea;BookSelection;BookUse;WritingMaterials;and

WritingDisplays.

17|P a g e

OncetrainedtousetheBTLClassroomInterventionmaterials,teachersmaintainclassroomsthatarecharacterizedbyhigh‐qualityliteracymaterialsand,perhapsmoreimportantly,languageinteractionsthatfacilitateliteracydevelopment.

ELLCOClassroomEnvironmentConclusionTeacherswhowerenewtotheBTLClassroomInterventionwereabletocreateclassroomsthatprovidedpreschoolchildrenwith“optimalsupportfortheirlanguageandliteracydevelopment”(p.1;Smith,Dickinson,Sangeorge,&Anastasopoulos,2002).Theseclassroomswerecharacterizedbymoreandhigherqualityreadingandwritingmaterialsandactivitiesaswellasmultipleteacher‐childinteractionsthatareknowntofacilitateorallanguagedevelopmentandearlyliteracyskillacquisition.TeachersinMaintenanceclassroomswereabletomaintainthestructuralcomponentsindicativeofastrongLiteracyEnvironmentfrompreviousyearstothisprojectyear.TheBTLClassroomInterventionhasalwaysbeensuccessfulinhelpingteacherscreateliteracyenvironmentsthatwouldbecapableofsupportingchildren’sdevelopingliteracyabilities.Moreimportantly,thementoringprovidedduringthe2007and2008projectyearindicatedthatteacherswereabletomovebeyondchangingthestructuralfeaturesoftheenvironmentintosystematicallyandconsistentlyalteringboththegeneralclassroomenvironmentaswellastheliteracy‐enrichinginteractionsthatarecrucialtosupportingchildren’soptimallanguageandliteracy‐skilldevelopment.First,theGeneralClassroomEnvironmentsubscaleindicatedthattrainedteachersintroducedgreaterintentionalityinthephysicalorganizationoftheclassroom;providedchildrenwithmultipleopportunitiesforchoiceandfortakinginitiative;andusedmorepositivemanagementstrategies.Thissubscalemoregenerallyevaluatedtheclassroomenvironmentincludingwhetherthisenvironmentcouldsuccessfullysupportgeneralchilddevelopmentandpositiveclassroomexperiencesforbothteachersandchildren.

Figure6.ELLCOSubscalesOverTimefor7TrainedTeachers

18|P a g e

Next,specificenvironmentalfeaturesthatsupportedahighqualityliteracyenvironmentwerescoredusingtheLiteracyEnvironmentsubscale.Thissubscaleprovidesaquickinventoryofthetypesofliteracy‐relateditemsorsupportsthatwerefoundineachclassroom.Bothtreatmentandmaintenanceteacherscreatedliteracyenvironmentsthatincorporateddesignatedbookareas;providedanumberofbooksthatfeaturedvariedtopicsandthatwereingoodphysicalcondition;madethesebookseasilyaccessibletochildren;andprovidedavarietyofwritingtoolsthatwerealsoeasilyaccessible.Theremainingsubscalesassessedthevariousinteractionsthatoccurredinclassroomscenteredaroundlanguageandliteracytopicsincludinginteractionsbetweenteachersandchildrenandbetweenchildrenandthematerialsandactivitiesavailabletothemintheirclassrooms.First,theLanguage,Literacy,andCurriculumsubscalemeasuredateachers’abilitytofacilitateorallanguage;toadoptpositiveandintentionalapproachestobookreading,writing,curriculumintegration,andassessment;andtofacilitatehomesupportforliteracy.Thesetypesofinteractionshelptocreatealanguage‐andliteracy‐richenvironmentthat,inotherresearch,hasbeenlinkedtopositivechilddevelopmentoutcomes.Teachersinboththetreatmentandthemaintenancegroupsconsistentlyscoredbetweenproficientandexemplaryonthesekeyteacher‐childinteractionalitems.Second,thenumberofpositiveLiteracyActivitiesinbothtreatmentandmaintenanceclassroomsalsoincreasedfrompretesttoposttestandweresubstantiallyhigherthancontrolteacherclassrooms.TeachersimplementingtheBTLClassroomInterventionengagedinmoreandlongerfull‐groupandone‐to‐onebook‐readingsessions;modeledwriting;providedwritingassistanceandopportunitiesforwriting;andsetasidetimeforchildrentolookatbooksaloneorwithaclassmate.Takentogether,thesefindingssuggestthatteacherswhohavebeentrainedtodelivertheBTLClassroomInterventionareprimedandabletomakechangestothestructuralfeaturesoftheirclassroomsincludinggeneralclassroommanagementabilities,specificenvironmentalfeaturesthatarenecessaryforliteracysupport,andincreasedopportunitiesforliteracyactivities.Inaddition,thesestructuralchangesalsoresultedinprocessqualitychangesasindexedbyhigher‐qualitylanguage‐andliteracy‐richinteractionsandexperiences.Finally,maintenanceteacherswhohadbeentrainedinpreviousyearswereabletosustainthekindofhigh‐qualityenvironmentneededtofundamentallyshiftyoungchildren’searlylanguageandliteracytrajectories.

ChildLiteracyOutcomesChildrenwereassessedattwotimepoints:fall2007,priortoanyinterventionparticipation,andagaininMarchorAprilof2008,towardtheendoftheacademicyear.Whereavailable,benchmarksandexpecteddevelopmentalrangeshavebeenindicated.TablesareprovidedattheconclusionofeachIndicatorsection.Thesetableslistedallindicatorsassociatedwithalargerconstruct(i.e.,largerconstructsincludedVocabularyKnowledge,LetterKnowledge,PhonemicAwareness,PrintConventions,CombinedEarlyLiteracyTask).Eachtablecontainedacolumnofassessmentsthatmeasuredaspectsoftheoverallindicator.Forinstance,theLetterKnowledgeIndicatorwascomprisedofUpperCaseTotallettersnamed,UpperCaseletternamingrate;AnyLowerCaselettersnamed?;LowerCaseTotallettersnamed;andLowerCaseletternamingrate.Foreachassessmentlistedinatable,therewerecolumnsforeachofthethreeinterventiongroups(i.e.,Treatment,Maintenance,Control).Withineach

19|P a g e

interventiongroup,therewerealsocolumnsthatindicatedwhetherscoreswerethepretestaverageorthepost‐testaverage.Tableswereconstructedusingthefollowinginformation:Allmeansatboththepretestandthepost‐testcontrolledforpre‐interventionknowledge,teachercharacteristicsassociatedwithanindividualchild’sclassroom,andtheclassroomliteracyenvironment.Indicatortableswerecreatedforeachofthe5setsofIndicators:a. IndicatorofLanguageDevelopment:LanguageDevelopmentconsistedofoneindicatorthat

measuredchildren’sexpressivevocabularyknowledge.b. IndicatorsofLetterKnowledge:Therewerefivedifferenceindicesofletterknowledge.Notall

indicatorswereadministeredtoeverychild.Administrationdependedonwhetherchildrenwereabletocompleteenoughitemsontheprevioustask.Specifically:

• AllchildrenwereadministeredtheUpperCaseletternamingtask.ThistaskinvolvedpresentingallUpperCasealphabetletterstoachild.Thechildwasaskedtonameasmanyashe/shecould.Thedatacollectorscoredeachofthe26lettersascorrectorincorrect.Thedatacollectoralsomeasuredhowlong(inseconds)ittookachildtocompletethistask.

• Ifthechildaccuratelyidentified16UpperCaseletters10,he/shewaseligibletoattempttheLowerCaseletterknowledgetask.ThistaskinvolvedpresentingthechildwithallLowerCaselettersinrandomorder.Thechildwasaskedtonameasmanyoftheselettersasshe/hecould.Inadditiontoscoringwhetherornotthechildwasabletoaccuratelyidentifyeachlowercaseletter,thedatacollectormeasured(inseconds)howlongthechildtook.

• Ifthechildwasabletoaccuratelyidentify9ormoreLowerCaseletters10,he/shewaseligiblefortheLetterSoundstask.Thistaskinvolvedpresentingthechildwith23alphabetlettersand3digraphsinrandomorder.Thechildwasaskedtoproducethesoundassociatedwitheach.Inadditiontoscoringwhetherornotthechildwasabletoaccuratelyidentifythelettersounds,thedatacollectoralsomeasured(inseconds)howlongittookforthechildtocompletethetask.

c. IndicatorsofPhonemicAwareness:Therewerethreedifferenceindicesofletterknowledge.Thefirstindex,theIGDIInitialSoundsFluencytask,wasadministeredtoallchildren.ThePALSpreKLetterSoundstaskwasonlyadministeredtothosechildrenwhowereabletoidentify16UpperCaseand9LowerCaselettersaccurately10.Notallindicatorswereadministeredtoeverychild.

d. IndicatorsofPrintConventions:Theseindicatorsincludedbookknowledge,printknowledge,andstorycomprehensionthatwereadministeredwhilereadingabooktogether.

e. CombinedEarlyLiteracyTask:Thismeasurewasadministeredtoallchildrenandwasdesignedtomeasuretheirknowledgeofbookconventions,printconventions,letterknowledge,phonologicalandphonemicawareness,andearlywritingskills.

Table2.Percentageofchildrenwhowereabletoidentifyatleastoneitemcorrectlyoneachtask. Treatment Maintenance Control Pre Post Pre Post Pre PostUpperCase1112 94.7% 97.9% 82.2% 91.1% 89.2% 88.3%LowerCase1314 54.7% 84.2% 26.7% 55.6% 30.6% 61.3%

10 The criteria for proceeding to the next subtest on this overall measure was the same at both the pre-test and the post-test (e.g., to be administered the Lower Case subtest, children at both the pre-test and post-test needed to accurately identify 16 Upper Case letters). 11 Χ2 = 7.33, p < 0.05 12 Χ2 = 6.82, p < 0.05 13 Χ2 = 6.03, p < 0.05 14 Χ2 = 19.68, p < 0.001

20|P a g e

LetterSounds1516 51.6% 76.8% 21.1% 51.1% 25.2% 50.5%

IndicatorsofLanguageDevelopment

IGDIPictureNaming

Thistaskevaluatedyoungchildren’sexpressivevocabularyknowledge.Childrenwereaskedtonameorlabelasmanypicturecardsastheycouldinoneminute.Overall,performancewashighestforchildreninthecontrolgroup(i.e.,15.34)followedbychildreninthetreatmentgroup(i.e.,14.71)andthenchildreninthemaintenancegroup(i.e.,13.48)17;however,theseresultsweremoderatedbychild’sAge18.AllchildrenwhowerecategorizedintotheFOURSagegroupscoredsimilarly.TheperformanceofchildrenwhowerecategorizedintotheFIVESgroupdifferedbygroup:controlchildrenoutscoredtreatmentchildrenwho,inturn,outperformedmaintenancechildren.Follow‐uptestsindicatedthatboththetreatmentandmaintenancegroupsscoredsignificantlylowerthanthecontrolgroup.Differencesbetweenthetreatmentandmaintenancegroupswerenotstatisticallysignificant.

15 Χ2 = 23.79, p < 0.001 16 Χ2 = 18.19, p < 0.001 17 F(2,285)=4.07,p<0.05 18 F(4,285)=2.61,p<0.05

Figure7.IGDIPictureNamingScoresOverallandSplitbyGroupandAge

21|P a g e

Table3.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansfortheLanguageDevelopmentIndicatorbyAgeandGroup

Treatment Maintenance Control

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

FOURS

IGDIPictureNaming 13.45 14.40 13.57 13.14 12.95 14.20

FIVES


OVERALL


22|P a g e

IndicatorsofLetterKnowledgeUpperCaseLetterKnowledge

UpperCaseTotalScores.

Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandchild’sage19(Figure8).ForchildrenclassifiedasFOUR,thetreatmentgroupoutperformedboththecontrolandthemaintenancegroups.ForchildrenclassifiedasFIVE,allgroupsscoredsimilarly;thatis,therewerenosignificantdifferencesintheirknowledgeofUpperCaseletternames.

Figure8.UpperCaseLettersSplitbyGroupandAge

19F(2,288)=3.68,p<0.05

SpringBenchmarkRange:12–21UpperCaseLetters

23|P a g e

UpperCaseLetterNamingSpeed20.Therewasasignificantgroupbywaveinteraction21.Allthreegroupssignificantlyimprovedfrompretesttopost‐test.ChildreninthetreatmentgroupnamedUpperCaselettersthefastestfollowedbycontrolgroupchildrenandthenmaintenancegroupchildren.SeeFigure9.

20Notethattheletternamingspeedrepresentstherateatwhichchildrenwereidentifyingthelettersandisnotnecessarilyareflectionofhowmanyletterswerenamed;thatis,itextrapolatestheratebasedonthetotaltimespentonthetaskandthenumberoflettersnamedcorrectly.Incorrectresponseswerefactoredintotheiroverallnamingratessothatarateof22lettersperminutedoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheycorrectlyidentified22letters. 21F(2,212)=3.89,p<0.05

Figure9.UpperCaseLetterNamingSpeedbyGroupAcrossWave

24|P a g e

LowerCaseLetterKnowledge

AnyKnowledgeofLowerCaseLetters?AlargermajorityofTreatmentchildrenwereabletoidentifyanyLowerCaseLetters(i.e.,84.2%)comparedwithMaintenance(i.e.,55.6%)andControl(i.e.,61.3%)childrenatthepost‐test22.Whenconductingthisanalysisforbothagegroups,moreyoungerchildren(i.e.,FOURs)inthetreatmentgroupcorrectlyidentifiedatleastoneLowerCaseletter(i.e.,80.0%)whencomparedwiththeirpeersinboththecontrol(i.e.,50.9%)andmaintenancegroups(i.e.,50.7%)23.Thedifferencesforolderchildrenweremarginallysignificant24butevidencedthesamepatterns;thatis,86.2%oftheFIVEsinthetreatmentgroupwereabletoaccuratelyidentifyanyLowerCasecomparedwith76.5%oftheFIVEsinthemaintenancegroupand70.7%ofFIVEsinthecontrolgroup.

LowerCaseTotalScores.

Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandage25(Figure10).ChildreninthetreatmentgroupwhowereFOURwereabletoidentifymoreLowerCaseletterswhencomparedwiththeirpeersinboththecontrolandmaintenancegroups.Incontrast,childreninthemaintenancegroupwhowereclassifiedasFIVEsoutperformedtheirpeersinboththetreatmentandcontrolgroups.

22Χ2=19.68,p<0.001 23 Χ2=8.41,p<0.05 24 Χ2=4.40,p<0.11 25F(2,288)=3.05,p<0.05

SpringBenchmarkRange:9–17LowerCaseLetters

25|P a g e

Figure10.LowerCaseLettersSplitbyAgeandGroup

LowerCaseLetterNamingSpeed26.Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandage27(Figure11).ChildrenintheFOURStreatmentgroupidentifiedlowercaselettersmore

quicklythanchildrenintheFOURScontrolandmaintenancegroups.ForbothYOUNGandOLD5s,controlgroupchildrenoutperformedtheirtreatmentandmaintenancegrouppeers.

26 Notethattheletternamingspeedrepresentstherateatwhichchildrenwereidentifyingthelettersandisnotnecessarilyareflectionofhowmanyletterswerenamedcorrectly;thatis,achildmayhavebeenidentifyinglettersatarateof22lettersperminutebutmayhaveonlynamed15letterscorrectly. 27 F(2,71)=3.20,p<0.05

26|P a g e

Figure11.LowerCaseLetterNamingSpeedbyGroupAcrossWave

27|P a g e

Table4.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllLetterKnowledgeIndicesbyAgeandGroup Treatment Maintenance Control


FOURS

UpperCaseTotal 12.56 17.61 10.88 12.54 11.51 13.91

UpperCaseRate 12.14 23.63 12.07 15.71 11.81 19.18

AnyLowerCase? 33.3% 80.0% 16.4% 50.7% 24.5% 50.9%

LowerCaseTotal 8.44 13.59 7.47 9.19 8.19 10.39

LowerCaseRate 23.91 32.20 17.15 25.39 16.41 28.95

FIVES

UpperCaseTotal 10.54 16.49 12.04 16.47 10.86 17.55

UpperCaseRate 10.59 22.08 12.80 18.41 11.70 22.58

AnyLowerCase? 64.6% 86.2% 70.6% 76.5% 36.2% 70.7%

LowerCaseTotal 5.46 12.06 8.03 12.22 5.52 12.75

LowerCaseRate 18.28 29.40 22.76 24.46 24.37 33.52

OVERALL

UpperCaseTotal 11.55 17.05 11.46 14.50 11.19 15.73

UpperCaseRate 11.36 22.86 12.43 17.06 11.76 20.88

AnyLowerCase? 54.7% 84.2% 26.7% 55.6% 30.6% 61.3%

LowerCaseTotal 6.95 12.83 7.75 10.71 9.29 9.13

LowerCaseRate 21.10 30.80 19.96 24.92 20.39 31.24

28|P a g e

IndicatorsofPhonemicAwarenessIGDIInitialSoundsFluency

Therewasasignificant3‐wayinteractionamonggroup,age,andwave28(Figure12).BothmaintenanceandcontrolgroupchildrenwhowereclassifiedasFOURoutperformedtheirpeersinthetreatmentgroup.ChildreninthemaintenancegroupwhowereclassifiedasFIVEobtainedhigherscoresfollowedbyFIVEsinthetreatmentgroupwho,inturn,scoredhigherthanFIVEsinthecontrolgroup.

Figure12.IGDIInitialSoundsFluencySplitbyAgeandGroup

28F(2,288)=3.51,p<.01

FallKindergartenBenchmarks:0‐3AtRisk4‐7SomeRisk8+LowRisk

At Risk

Some Risk Low Risk

29|P a g e

LetterSoundsKnowledge

AnyKnowledgeofLetterSounds?AlargermajorityofTreatmentchildrenwereabletoidentifyanyLetterSounds(i.e.,76.8%)comparedwithMaintenance(i.e.,51.1%)andControl(i.e.,50.5%)childrenatthepost‐test29.Whenconductingthisanalysisforbothagegroups,moreyoungerchildren(i.e.,FOURs)inthetreatmentgroupcorrectlyidentifiedatleastoneLetterSound(i.e.,76.7%)whencomparedwiththeirpeersinboththecontrol(i.e.,43.4%)andmaintenancegroups(i.e.,46.6%)30.Thedifferencesforolderchildrenweremarginallysignificant31butevidencedthesamepatterns;thatis,76.9%oftheFIVEsinthetreatmentgroupwereabletoaccuratelyidentifyanyLetterSoundscomparedwith70.6%oftheFIVEsinthemaintenancegroupand56.9%ofFIVEsinthecontrolgroup.

LetterSoundsTotalScore.

Performancewashighestforchildreninthemaintenancegroup(i.e.,5.73)followedbychildreninthetreatmentgroup(i.e.,5.33)andthenchildreninthecontrolgroup(i.e.,4.08)32.Therewasalsoasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandage33(Figure13).ChildreninthetreatmentgroupwhowerecategorizedasFOURsoutperformedtheirpeersinthecontrolandmaintenancegroups.ChildreninthemaintenancegroupwhowerecategorizedasFIVEsoutperformedtheirpeersinthetreatmentgroupwho,inturn,outperformedthosechildreninthecontrolgroup.

29Χ2=18.19,p<0.001 30Χ2=9.70,p<0.01 31Χ2=5.70,p<0.06 32F(2,288)=4.06,p<0.05 33F(2,288)=7.39,p<0.001

SpringDevelopmentalRange:4–8LetterSounds

30|P a g e

Therewasalsoasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweenGroupandWave34(Figure14).Atthepost‐

test,bothtreatmentviewersandmaintenanceviewersoutperformedtheircontrolgrouppeers

LetterSoundsNamingSpeed.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbygrouporageforchildren’slettersoundnamingspeed.

34F(2,288)=11.08,p<0.05

Figure8.LetterSoundsSplitbyAgeandGroup

Figure9.LetterSoundsbyGroupAcrossWave

31|P a g e

Table5.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllPhonemicAwarenessIndicesbyAgeandGroup



FOURS

IGDIInitialSoundsFluency 6.12 8.72 9.26 10.50 8.29 10.31

AnyLetterSounds? 33.3% 76.7% 9.6% 46.6% 20.8% 43.4%

LetterSoundsTotal 3.52 7.86 3.73 5.29 4.71 5.79

LetterSoundsRate 7.40 10.36 6.07 7.73 5.81 9.32

FIVES





OVERALL





32|P a g e

IndicatorsofPrintConventionsBookKnowledge

TherewasasignificantmaineffectofGroup35(Figure15).Childreninthetreatmentgroupoutperformedtheirpeersinthemaintenanceandcontrolgroups.

PrintKnowledge

Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweenGroupandAge36(Figure16).TheFOURStreatmentandmaintenancegroupsobtainedhigherscoresonprintknowledgewhencomparedwithcontrolgroupFOURs.TheFIVEstreatmentandcontrolgroupsoutperformedtheirpeersinthe

maintenancegroup.

35F(2,288)=5.29,p<0.01 36F(2,288)=3.79,p<0.05

Figure11.PrintKnowledgeScoresbyAgeandGroup

Figure10.BookKnowledgeScoresbyGroup

33|P a g e

Comprehension

Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandwave37(Figure17).Childreninboththetreatmentandcontrolgroupsoutperformedtheirpeersinthemaintenancegroupatthepost‐

test.

37 F(2,288)=15.26,p<0.01

Figure17.ComprehensionScoresSplitbyGroup

34|P a g e

Table6.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllPrintConventionsIndicesbyAgeandGroup



FOURs

BookKnowledge 2.21 2.39 1.85 2.11 1.99 1.58

PrintKnowledge 0.67 1.33 0.58 1.25 0.59 0.74

Comprehension 4.46 5.58 5.22 4.54 4.25 4.91

FIVEs

BookKnowledge 2.45 2.66 2.46 2.37 2.29 2.14

PrintKnowledge 0.81 1.30 0.18 0.98 0.84 1.26

Comprehension 5.03 5.63 5.22 4.54 5.08 5.72

OVERALL

BookKnowledge 2.33 2.53 2.16 2.24 2.14 1.86

PrintKnowledge 0.74 1.32 0.38 1.12 0.72 1.00

Comprehension 4.75 5.61 5.05 4.41 4.67 5.32

35|P a g e

CombinedEarlyLiteracySkillsGetReadytoRead!Screener

Therewasasignificantmaineffectofgroup38.Childreninthetreatmentgroupoutperformedtheirpeersinthemaintenancegroupwho,inturn,outperformedtheirpeersinthecontrolgroup.Thiseffectwasmoderatedbywaveofassessment39(Figure18).Treatmentandmaintenancechildrenscoredhigherthantheircontrolgrouppeersatthepost‐test.

38 F(2,288)=3.74,p<0.05 39 F(4,285)=5.42,p<0.001

StrongGRTR:12–16points

Nat’lHeadStartMean=8.52

Figure12.GetReadytoReadSplitbyAgeandGroupScoresatorabove11arepredictiveoflaterreading

success

36|P a g e

Table7.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansfortheCombinedEarlyLiteracyIndicatorbyAgeandGroup Treatment Maintenance Control


FOURS

GetReadytoRead 9.84 11.78 9.01 10.06 9.30 9.79

FIVES

GetReadytoRead 9.18 11.80 8.77 12.52 9.17 11.29

OVERALL

GetReadytoRead 9.51 11.79 8.89 11.29 9.24 10.54

37|P a g e

ResultsSummaryTableOnthenexttwopages,twotablescontaineffectsizeestimatesforeachoutcome.Aneffectsizeisanobjective,standardized,andmetric‐freeindexofthepracticalsignificanceofaresult.Itreflectsthemagnitude,orsize,ofgroupdifferences(Hedges,2008).Thistypeofinformationcanhelpresearchersandpolicymakersdeterminewhetheraparticulardifferencebetweentwogroupsisbigandmeaningfulorwhetherthedifferenceisactuallyanartifactofalargesamplesize.Standardizedeffectsizesreflectthenumberofstandarddeviationunitsthatseparatetwogroups.Astandarddeviationreflectsthedispersionofchildren’sscoresaroundagroupmeanusinganindexoftheexpectedvariationaroundthatmean.Asmallstandarddeviationindicatesthatchildren’sscoresarecloselyclusteredaroundthemeanvaluewhilealargestandarddeviationindicatesthatthespreadoftheirscoresisrelativelywide.About68%ofchildren’sscoreswillfallbetweenonestandarddeviationaboveandonestandarddeviationbelowthemeanwhile95%ofchildren’sscoreswillfallbetweentwostandarddeviationsaboveandtwostandarddeviationsbelowthemean.Inthisstudy,standardizedeffectsizesarereportedasawaytocontextualizethemagnitudeofdifferencesinanequivalentfashionacrossmeasuresorparticipants.Cohen’sd(Cohen,1988)wasselectedbecauseitisoneofthemostwidelyusedeffectsizeindicesintheliterature.Whenmakingcomparisonsinvolvingtwogroupsofchildrenwhoparticipatedintwodifferenteducationalinterventions(i.e.,InterventionAorInterventionB),obtaininganeffectsizeof1.0(withInterventionAchildrenoutperformingInterventionBchildren)indicatesthatInterventionAchildrenscored,onaverage,astandarddeviationhigherthanInterventionBchildren.Tables8and9belowcontaineffectsizesassociatedwithtwodifferentcomparisons:1)overallbygroupand2)withineachagelevelbygroup.Positivevaluesindicatethateitherthetreatmentgrouporthemaintenancegroupscoredhigherthanthecontrolgroup.Negativevaluesindicatethatthecontrolgroupscoredhigherthanthetreatmentgrouporthemaintenancegroup.Forexample:

1. TheeffectsizedescribingthedifferencebetweentreatmentandcontrolgroupmeansforUpperCaseTotalis0.47.Thiseffectsizeindicatesthatchildreninthetreatmentgroupscoredjustundera½standarddeviationhigherthantheircontrolgrouppeers.

2. TheeffectsizedescribingthedifferencebetweenmaintenanceandcontrolgroupmeansforUpperCaseTotalis‐0.17.Thiseffectsizeindicatesthatchildreninthecontrolgroupscored.17standarddeviationunitshigherthantheirmaintenancegrouppeers.

Cohen(1988)suggestedbenchmarksforinterpretingwhetheraneffectsizeismeaningfulortrivialand,ifmeaningful,howbiganeffectsizewas(i.e.,small,moderate,orlarge).Onthenextpage,thereisalegendwiththesebenchmarksaswellasacolorkeyindicating,at‐a‐glance,whicheffectsweresmall,moderate,orlarge.

38|P a g e

Table8.EffectSizeEstimatesforIndicatorsofLanguageDevelopmentandLetterKnowledge FOURS

(46–59months)FIVES

(60–74months)OVERALL

LanguageDevelopment

IGDIPictureNaming

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.10 d=‐0.44 d=‐0.34Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.05 d=‐0.94 d=‐0.90

LetterKnowledge

UpperCaseTotal Treatmentvs.Control d=0.47 d=0.15 d=0.19

Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.17 d=0.30 d=‐0.16

UpperCaseNamingSpeed

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.92 d=‐0.47 d=0.15Maintenancevs.Control d=‐.016 d=‐0.60 d=‐0.27

LowerCaseTotal Treatmentvs.Control d=0.35 d=‐0.07 d=0.17

Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.17 d=0.19 d=‐0.11

LowerCaseNamingSpeed

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.33 d=‐0.39 d=‐0.02Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.07 d=‐0.42 d=‐0.27

EffectSize Interpretation

0.10to0.30 Small

0.30to0.50 Moderate

0.50andAbove Large

< ‐0.10 Controlgroupscoredhigher

Between‐0.10and0.10 Trivial

39|P a g e

Table9.EffectSizeEstimatesforIndicatorsofPhonemicAwareness,PrintConventions,andGetReadytoRead FOURS

(46–59months)FIVES

(60–74months)OVERALL

PhonemicAwareness

IGDIInitialSoundsFluency Treatmentvs.Control d=‐0.23 d=0.20 d=0.00

Maintenancevs.Control d=0.02 d=0.62 d=0.28

LetterSoundsTotal

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.08 d=0.19 d=0.45Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.08 d=0.45 d=0.34

LetterSoundsNamingSpeed Treatmentvs.Control d=0.04 d=0.08 d=0.08

Maintenancevs.Control d=‐0.10 d=0.30 d=0.02

PrintConventions

BookKnowledge Treatmentvs.Control d=0.56 d=0.34 d=0.46Maintenancevs.Control d=0.19 d=0.21 d=0.18

PrintKnowledge

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.41 d=0.01 d=0.14Maintenancevs.Control d=0.28 d=‐0.56 d=‐0.38

Comprehension

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.31 d=‐0.03 d=0.13Maintenancevs.Control d=0.00 d=‐0.31 d=‐0.36

CombinedEarlyLiteracy

GetReadytoRead

Treatmentvs.Control d=0.64 d=0.13 d=0.42Maintenancevs.Control d=0.00 d=0.20 d=0.23

EffectSize Interpretation

0.10to0.30 Small

0.30to0.50 Moderate

0.50andAbove Large

< ‐0.10 Controlgroupscoredhigher

Between‐0.10and0.10 Trivial

40|P a g e

BridgingtheGapContextualizingtherelationsbetweentheinterventionandkeyearlyliteracyoutcomesofinterestcanbeaccomplishedbycomparingchildperformancewithbenchmarksanddevelopmentalranges,whenavailable.Anotherwaytocontextualizethefindingsinvolvescomparingthemagnitude,orsize,ofgroupdifferences(Hedges,2008;Hill,Bloom,Black,&Lipsey,2008).Effectsizeshelpresearchersandpolicy‐makersdeterminewhetheraparticulargroupdifferenceispracticalormeaningfulorwhetherthedifferenceisactuallyanartifactofalargesamplesize.Policy‐RelevantPerformanceGapsEstablishingcriteriathatallowresearchersandpolicy‐makerstojudgetheeffectivenessofaneducationalprogramorinterventioniscritical.Typically,minoritychildrenandchildrenfromlowincomefamiliesevidencesubstantialdeficitsintheirearlylanguagedevelopmentandliteracyskillswhencomparedwiththeirmoreadvantagedpeers.Forinstance,HartandRisley(1995)foundthattheamountandqualityoftalkthatparentsengagedinwiththeirinfantsandtoddlersfrom6monthstothreeyearspredictedthesizeofthesechildren’svocabulariesatage3.Specifically,childrenofprofessionalparentshadvocabulariesthataveraged1,116words;childrenfromworking‐classfamilieshadvocabulariesthataveraged749words;andchildrenfromlow‐income(or“welfare”)familieshadvocabularieshalfthesizeofchildrenfromprofessionalfamilies(i.e.,525words).Thisdisadvantagecontinuedtofollowthesechildrenthroughtheirtransitiontoformalschooling(Walker,Greenwood,Hart,&Carta,1994);itgrewlargerovertheyears(i.e.,Mattheweffects;Stanovich,1986);andwasnearlyimpossibletoovercomeevenwithsubstantialinterventionefforts.Nationalestimatesofpreschoolers’earlyliteracyabilitiesweretakenfrompublishedreportsusingdatafromtheEarlyChildhoodLongitudinalSurvey–BirthCohort(i.e.,ECLS‐B;NCES,2006).Theunderlyingearlyliteracyskillsthatweremeasuredinboththatstudyandthepresentstudyincludedindicatorsofletterknowledge,printconventions,andacombinedearlyliteracyskillstask.Becausetheactualmeasuresusedineachstudydiffered,itwasnecessarytostandardizedalloutcomedata.Oncestandardized,comparisonsbetweenbothstudiesusingacommonframeworkbecamepossible.Recallthatthestandardizedeffectsizerepresentsthenumberofstandarddeviationunitsthatseparatethemeansoftwogroups.

1. LetterKnowledge:IntheECLS‐B,letterknowledgewasexaminedbyhavingchildrenidentifybothletternamesandlettersounds.Inthepresentstudy,threesubtestscoresassociatedwiththePALSpreKAlphabetKnowledgetaskwerestandardizedandaggregatedtoformoneindicatorofLetterKnowledge(i.e.,UpperCase,LowerCase,andLetterSoundNaming).

2. PrintConventions:IntheECLS‐B,printconventionsweremeasuredthroughaseriesofquestionstargetingyoungchildren’sunderstandingofwhatprintrepresentsandhowitworks(e.g.,howtoorientthebook,discriminatingprintfrompictures,readinglefttoright).Inthepresentstudy,twosubtestsderivedfromthePrintandStoryConceptstaskswerestandardizedandaggregatedtoformoneindicatorofPrintConventions(i.e.,bookknowledgeandprintknowledge).

3. GeneralEarlyLiteracyAbility:IntheECLS‐B,earlyliteracyskillswereevaluatedusingacombinationofletterrecognition,receptiveandexpressivelanguage,lettersounds,andearlyreading.Inthepresentstudy,theGetReadytoReadscoreswerestandardizedandcombined

41|P a g e

withtheindicatorsofLetterKnowledgeandPrintConventionstomatchtheprocedureusedbyintheECLS‐Bmethods.

Table10.EffectSizeEstimatesContrastingNationalEstimateswithStudyEstimates IdentifiedGapsBetweenDifferentGroupsofChildren SizeoftheGapa BTL:Tvs.C BTL:Mvs.C

LetterKnowledge

EAvs.AAachievementgap 0.25

EAvsnon‐EAachievementgap 0.39

LowSESvs.MiddleSESachievementgap 0.39

LowSESvs.HighSESachievementgap 0.98

0.62 0.18

PrintConventions





0.69 0.24

CombinedEarlyLiteracyTask





1.51 0.66

Note.EA=EuropeanAmerican;AA=AfricanAmerican;non‐EA=AfricanAmerican,Hispanic,AmericanIndianandAlaskaNative;SES=socioeconomicstatus;T=Treatment,M=Maintenance,C=ControlaAllmetricsinthistablerepresentstandardizedeffectsizes(i.e.,Cohen’sd)

42|P a g e

EffectSizesandtheAchievementGapAsindicatedinthetablesabove,theBTLClassroomInterventionprovidedapowerful,effective,andengaginginterventionthathelpedeconomicallydisadvantagedpreschoolersbridgetheachievementgapbetweentheirperformanceoneachofthethreeindicatorsandthescoresoftheirmoreadvantagedpeers.TheBTLClassroomInterventionwasdesignedtohelpreducetheachievementgapstypicallyfoundbetweenminorityandmajoritysubgroupsofchildrenandbetweenchildrenfromlowerSESandmiddleSESfamilies.Recently,researchershaveproposedthattheeffectsizesassociatedwithaninterventionoreducationalreformshouldbecomparedwiththesizeofknownachievementgapsinordertojudgewhetheraninterventionismeaningfulorworthimplementing(Hilletal.,2008;Konstantopoulos&Hedges,2008).Acrossthethreeindicatorsofkeyearlyliteracyskills,theestimatedimpactoftheBTLClassroomInterventionwasremarkablyconsistentanduniversallylargerthanthedocumentedgapsbetweenEuropeanAmericanandAfricanAmericanpreschoolersorbetweenpreschoolersfromlowSESfamiliesandfrommiddleSESfamilies.PuttingtheLastPiecesofthePuzzleTogetherEstablishingthataneffectexistsandissimilarinmagnitudetothesizeofthedifferencebetweentwopopulationsofinterest(e.g.,lowSESvs.middleSESchildren)isimportant.Comparingthesetwoeffects(i.e.,comparingthemagnitudeofthedifferencesinfavoroftheinterventionwiththemagnitudeofthedifferencesbetweenlowSESandmiddleSES)helpstoestablishthattheinterventioncannormativelyresultinaneffectthatissimilartoorbiggerthantheobservedachievementgap.Thenextstepinthepuzzleisdeterminingwhethertheobservedgainsmeetthecriterionlevelassociatedwithaparticularskill.Didparticipatingintheinterventionhelppreschoolersobtainscoresthatwereeitheratorabovetheestablishedbenchmarksorinsidetheexpecteddevelopmentalrangesassociatedwithaparticularskill.Forexample,GetReadytoReadscoresinpreschoolthatareatorabove11pointshavebeenfoundtobepredictiveoflaterconventionalreadingsuccess.Atthestartoftheintervention,allchildrenonaveragescored9.21.Atthepost‐test,thosewhoparticipatedintheinterventionscoredabovethe11‐pointbenchmark(i.e.,treatment=11.79;maintenance=11.29).Across20comparisons,preschoolersinthetreatmentgroupreachedestablishedbenchmarks83.3%ofthetime;preschoolersinthemaintenancegroupreachedtheestablishedbenchmarks77.8%ofthetime;andchildreninthecontrolgroup

43|P a g e

reachedtheestablishedbenchmarks66.7%ofthetime.SeeFigure19.

Figure13.BenchmarkComparisonsAcrossGroups

44|P a g e

DiscussionDidtheBTLClassroomInterventionImpactTeachers’Literacy‐RelatedBehaviorsandtheOrganizationofTheirClassrooms?

TeachersusingtheBTLClassroomMaterialsandreceivingthementoringsupportevidencedsignificantchangesacrossallfoursubscalesoftheELLCO.TheLiteracyEnvironmentsubscaleinvolvedanassessmentoftheclassroom’slayoutandcontentsincludingavailability,content,anddiversityofreading,writing,andlisteningmaterials.TheGeneralClassroomEnvironmentsubscalemeasuredtheorganizationoftheclassroom,achild’sopportunitiesforchoiceandself‐initiative,appropriateclassroommanagementstrategies,andanoverallpositiveclimate.TheLiteracyActivitiessubscalemeasuredthenumberandlengthoffull‐groupandone‐to‐onebookreadingsessionsaswellaswhetherchildrenwerewritingontheirownorwithassistanceaswellaswhetherteachersweremodelingpositivewritingbehaviors.TheLanguage,Literacy,andCurriculumsubscalemeasuredorallanguagefacilitation,presenceofandapproachestoreading,writing,andcurriculumintegration,andrecognizingdiversityandbridgingthehome‐schoolenvironments.Maintenanceclassroomswereabletosustainhigh‐qualityliteracyenvironmentsfrompreviousyearstothisprojectyearandtreatmentclassrooms,withextendedmentoringandsupport,wereabletoachievehigh‐qualityliteracyenvironments.Changeswerefoundfromthemostsuperficialstructuralcomponentstoincreasedquantityandhigherqualityenrichinginteractionsthathavebeenpreviouslylinkedtochildren’soptimalgrowthinliteracyandothercognitiveandsocialdomains.Todeterminewhetherthesepositivechangestranslatedintogainsonkeyearlyliteracyskills,children’sabilitiesacrossawidearrayofearlyliteracymeasuresweremeasured.

DidtheBTLClassroomInterventionImpactChildren’sEarlyLiteracySkills?

Childrenbetween46monthsand59monthswhoseteacherswerenewtotheBTLClassroomInterventionobtainedhigherscoreswhencomparedwiththeirmaintenanceandcontrolgrouppeersonnearlyalloutcomesacrossIndicatorsofLanguageDevelopment,LetterKnowledge,PhonemicAwareness,PrintConventions,andaCombinedEarlyLiteracySkillsScreener.Specifically,4yearoldchildrenidentifiedmorePictureNames,UpperandLowerCaseletters,andLetterSounds.TheirabilitytonameUpperandLowerCaseLettersandLetterSoundswasfasterthantheirpeersinthemaintenanceandcontrolgroups.Theywerebetterabletodemonstratethemechanicsofreading(i.e.,PrintKnowledge)andtoidentifykeyactualandinferentialstorycontent.Finally,theyscoredhigherthantheirpeersonacombinedearlyliteracyskillsscreenercalledtheGetReadytoReadachievingscoresthatarepredictiveoffuturereadingsuccess.Developmentaldifferencesare15%OlderchildrenwhoseteachershadpreviouslyparticipatedintheBTLClassroomIntervention(i.e.,MaintenanceGroup)obtainedhigherscoreswhencomparedwiththeirtreatmentandcontrolgrouppeersonIndicatorsofLetterKnowledgeandaCombinedEarlyLiteracySkillsScreener.Specifically,childrenwhowereolderthan5¼yearswereabletoidentifymoreUpperandLowerCaselettersandLetterSounds,tonameUpperCaselettersandLetterSoundsmorequickly,andtoaccuratelyansweritemsontheGetReadytoReadscreener.Whiletherewereseveralinstanceswhenolderchildreninthe

45|P a g e

controlgroupoutperformedtheirolderpeersinthetreatmentgroup,themaintenancegroup,orboth,therewerenoconsistentpatterns,suggestingthatthesedifferencesweremoreidiosyncraticthansystematic.Changingteacherbehaviorisachallengingundertaking.Inthisintervention,teacherswereprovidedwithextensivementoringandsupport,highqualitybooksandmaterials,andaneasy‐to‐usesupplementalliteracycurriculum.Asnotedabove,childrenwhowereineitherBTLClassroominterventiongroupevidencedhigherscoresonavarietyoftasks.Understandingthepatternsoffindingswasenhancedwhenachild’sagewasconsidered.Youngerchildrenobtainedhigherscoreswhentheywereinclassroomswhereteacherswereusingtheinterventionforthefirsttime.Itispossiblethatthesechildrenareattendingahigh‐qualitychildcareenvironmentforthefirsttime.Assuch,becausethesechildrenstartedtheprojectwithscoresindicatingaseriousriskoflaterreadingfailure,itislikelythatanyintervention(particularlyonethatisknowntobebotheffectiveandengaging)isgoingtohavepowerfuleffectsontheseyoungchildren’sskills.Thesechildrenmaybeexperiencingaliteracy‐andlanguage‐enrichingenvironmentonaregularbasisforthefirsttime.Infact,effectsizes(i.e.,anindexofthemagnitudeorsizeofaneffect)fortheyoungerchildrenaveragedbetween0.34and0.44,indicatingthatparticipationintheinterventionproducedchangesthatwereroughly1/3rdto2/5thofastandarddeviationhigherthantheircontrolgrouppeers.Meaningfulchangecanalsobethoughtofastheamountofvarianceinchildoutcomesthatwasattributabletotheintervention.Thisinterventionaccountedforbetween10.9%and19.4%ofthevarianceinchildoutcomes.Unlikeyoungerchildren,olderchildrendidbetterwhentheywereinclassroomswithteacherswhohadpreviouslyparticipatedintheproject.Intheseclassrooms,teacherswereabletomaintainahighdegreeofqualityfromoneyeartothenext.Thisqualityandstabilitymayhaveprovidedanenvironmentthatsupportedthesechildren’sskillsparticularlybecausetheyhavealreadyspentatleastayearattheircurrentchildcarecenterandhaveexperiencedayearwithoutanyextralanguage‐orliteracy‐enrichingexperiences.Themagnitudeorsizeoftheeffectforolderchildrenaveraged0.54,arelativelysizableeffectaccountingfor29.4%ofthevarianceinchildoutcomes.Itislikelythattheinterventioneffectsareespeciallypronouncedbecauseteacherswhohadpriorexperiencewiththeinterventionhaddevelopedacertainfacilitywiththematerialsandwerebetterabletohelpdeveloptheirolderlearners’skills.Further,olderlearnerswhohavenothadthebenefitofanyotherliteracyinstructionare,comparedwiththeiryoungerpeers,atamarkeddisadvantage.ItmaybethatteachersnewtotheBTLinterventionwerestrugglingnotonlywithchangingthegeneralliteracyenvironmentintheclassroombutalsotryingtoincorporatethespecialneedsofolderpreschoolerswhohaveanextrayearofdisadvantagebehindthem.Theaveragemagnitudeoftheeffectfoundforolderchildrenisparticularlyexcitingasitrangesbetween10%and20%higherthantheeffectsfoundforyoungerchildren.Thismeansthatexperiencedteachersweresuccessfulathelpingtheseolderchildrencatchuptotheiryoungerpeersaswellastostandardsorbenchmarksthatchildrenthisageneedtoobtaintoensureconventionalreadingsuccess.ThisstudycontributesadditionalevidenceregardingtheeffectivenessofusingBTLalone(i.e.,puretelevisionexposure;Linebargeretal.,2004;Uchikoshi,2006)andincombination(i.e.,exposureandsupplementalclassroommaterials;Linebarger,2006;Princeetal.,2001)tosupportyoungchildren’sburgeoningearlyliteracyskills.Moreimportantly,BTLhasconsistentlyhelpedyoungchildrenwhoareatsubstantialriskforlaterreadingfailureacquirethekeyearlyliteracyskillsneededforschoolandlaterlifesuccess.Thepowerofthisinterventionisafunctionofitsengagingcharacters,stories,andsketchesincombinationwithearlyliteracycontentthatiscarefullyinterwoventhroughoutthetelevisedcontentaswellasinfusedintoteachermaterialsandclassroommanipulatives.Childrenfromlow‐incomeandminoritybackgroundsspendmoretimewatchingtelevisionandreportthattheexperienceismore

46|P a g e

relaxingandofmorevalueincomparisontochildrenfrommiddleincomeandmajoritybackgrounds.Assuch,BTLrepresentsapowerfultoolforthesechildrenwhentheyareacquiringthekeyearlyliteracyskillsnecessaryforlearningtoread.

OtherThoughtsRegardingtheBTLClassroomIntervention

Inyearspast,effectsassociatedwithviewingBTLorparticipatinginaclassroominterventionweremoderatedbyachild’sinitialriskstatus(e.g.,Linebargeretal.,2004;Princeetal.,2001).Toexplainthemoderatedeffects,analysesassociatedwiththechild’sriskforlaterreadingfailurewerecomputed.Inthecurrentsample,32.6%ofpreschoolerswereconsideredatsignificantriskforlaterreadingfailure;30.7%ofpreschoolerswereconsideredatmarginalrisk;and36.7%ofpreschoolerswereconsiderednottobeatrisk.ItisnotclearwhetherMississippipreschoolers’literacyskillsaregenerallyimprovingorwhetherthesamplerecruitedforthe2007‐2008projectwaslessatriskthanaverage.Futureevaluationsshouldcontinuetomonitorthisemergingtrend.Regardlessofthereason,itisencouragingthatthepercentageofchildrenatriskforlaterreadingfailurehasdroppedfromnearlyallbutthreechildrenat‐risk(Princeetal.,2001)tojustaboutone‐thirdofchildrenat‐risk.RecommendationsforFutureResearchTherearesomeresearchissuesthatshouldbeaddressedwhenconductingadditionalinterventionstudies.Selectionandsamplingstrategiesareimportantissuestoanyresearchdesign,particularlyonethatusesaquasi‐experimentalframework.Becauseitishighlyunlikelythatchildrencanberandomlyassignedtogroups(i.e.,childrenareinclassroomsandclassroomsareassignedtocondition),itisimperativethatclassroomsinvolvedinastudyarerandomlyassignedtoatreatmentorcontrolcondition.Whilepreparingtheavailabledataforanalyses,itwasdeterminedthat,despitebesteffortstomatchcontrolandtreatmentclassroomsonavarietyofdemographicvariables(i.e.,povertyrates,location,targetage,teachereducation),therewerestillsomevariablesthatdifferedsignificantlyacrossthegroups(e.g.,child’sage,pre‐testELLCOscores).Althoughthesevariableswerestatisticallycontrolled,itisimportanttointerprettheresultspresentedherewithcaution.Itispossiblethatdifferencesareduetoothervariablesthatweremeasuredhere(e.g.,olderchildreninthetreatmentgroupmaynaturallyhavestrongerliteracyskills;classroomswithabetterliteracyenvironmentmayprovidechildreninthoseclassroomswithanadvantage)orothervariablesthatwerenot(e.g.,parentaleducation).Tostrengthentheresearchdesignandvalidatethefindingsofpreviousstudies,thisstudy,andfuturestudies,itisimportanttomakeaconcertedefforttokeeptheprocessasrigorousaspossible.Inadditiontochangesinthewaytheresearchisconducted,additionalchangesmaybenecessaryinthewaysinwhichtheinterventionisdelivered,particularlyforteacherswhohavepreviouslyparticipatedintheintervention.Itmaybethatfirstyearteachersreceivedextensivementoringandsupportwhilesecondyearteachersreceivelesssupport.Further,thelargestchangesonELLCOscoresareassociatedwiththegeneralliteracyenvironment(e.g.,displays,books).Theseenvironmentalvariableswerequicklyandsubstantivelychangedduringthefirstyearofintervention.Themorechallengingbehaviorstochangearethoserelatedtothelanguage,literacy,andcurricularenvironmentincludingthequantityandqualityoflanguage‐andliteracy‐promotingstrategies.Itispossiblethatencouragingthesetypesofinteractionswilltakemorementoringsupportthaniscurrentlypossibleoravailable.Onewaytoexaminethispossibilityittocodementorfieldnotesassociatedwithbothtreatmentandmaintenanceclassrooms.Currently,UPennstaffareworkingonthiscodingscheme.

47|P a g e

Finally,childrenwhoseteachersweresupplementingtheirregularinstructionwiththeBTLclassroominterventiondemonstratedgainsacrossmostearlyliteracymeasureswiththeexceptionofvocabularyknowledge.Initson‐airprogram,BTLfocusesheavilyoncode‐relatedskillacquisition.Charactersspendtimesoundingwordsoutandreadingaloud,smallsegmentsincludewordsthatmorphintootherwordsinthesamewordfamiliesorwiththesamevowelorconsonantsounds.Thegreateremphasisonphonologicalandphonemicawarenessskillsmakesthesewordpropertiesmoresalientandmayleavelittletimeleftoveror,alternatively,littlecognitivecapacityleftovertoencodenewwordsforboththeircode‐relatedpropertiesandtheirvocabularyororallanguageproperties.Itwouldbeexpectedthatovertime,aschildrenarerepetitivelyexposedtothecode‐relatedpropertiesofwords,theywouldbeabletodevotelesstimetothesecodepropertiesandmoretimetotheconceptualunderstandingofthewords.

ToSumItUpIthaslongbeenknownthathighqualityearlychildhoodeducationprogramshelpyoungchildrenexperiencingsignificantandchronicpovertyanddisadvantagebridgethegapbetweentheirreadinessforschoolandtheirmoreadvantagedpeers’readinessforschool(e.g.,PerryPreschoolProject,AbecedarianProject).Theseprogramsaretypicallycomposedofservicesdesignedtocomprehensivelysurroundchildrenandtheirfamilieswith,amongotherservices(e.g.,healthandsocialservices),cognitivelystimulatingtoysandmaterialsaswellaspositiveandsustainedlanguage‐,literacy‐,andprosocial‐promotingexperiencesandinteractions.ThespecificearlyliteracyachievementgapspresentedinTable10indicatethatAfricanAmericanpreschoolersareunderperformingtheirEuropeanAmericanpeersbyapproximately1/4thofastandarddeviationacrossthe3indicatorsofearlyliteracyachievementwhilechildrenfromlowSEShomesareunderperformingtheirpeerslivinginmiddleSESfamiliesby2/5thofastandarddeviation.Whilethesegapsmayseemrelativelysmallinpreschool,thereissubstantialevidencethattheyarepersistent,resistanttointervention,andwideningaschildrenprogressthroughschool.Walkeretal(1994)foundthatearlylanguagedeficitsidentifiedatage3andlinkedtofamilySESpredictedlanguagedevelopment,verbalability,andacademicachievementthroughouttheearlyelementaryschoolyears.Stanovich(1986)labeledthisphenomenonastheMattheweffect40,proposingthatchildrenwhohadmoreandpositiveearlyliteracyexperiencesaremorefrequentlyandintensivelyrewardedfortheseearlyaccomplishmentswhilechildrenwholackthesecumulativeexperiencesandsuccessesfindreadinglessenjoyable,struggletomakesenseofwhattheyarereading,andareoftenunabletobenefitfromandevenutilizeneweducationalexperienceseffectively.Essentially,childrenwhoseearlyliteracyachievementsareslowedordelayedprogressivelydecline,childrenwhoseearlyliteracyachievementscomequicklyandfrequentlyprogressivelyimprove,resultinginever‐wideningdifferencesbetweentheirreading,school,andlifetrajectories.TheBTLClassroomInterventiondescribedandevaluatedinthisstudyhasthepotentialtoprofoundlyalteryoungeconomicallydisadvantagedchildren’searlyliteracyachievements,bridgingthegapbetweentheseachievementsandtheirfasterpeerswhoareeitherEuropeanAmericanorlivinginmiddleandupperSEShomeswhile,atthesametime,placingthemonamorepositiveliteracytrajectory.Whiletherearenocurrentlong‐termstudiesofwhetherthesechildachievementsaremaintained,extrapolatingfromothersuccessfulearlyliteracyinterventionswithsimilarshort‐termeffectssuggeststhatthesegainswillbemaintainedandwillhelptheseat‐riskpreschoolerstoswitchfromthe“poorgetpoorer”trajectorytothe‘richgetricher’trajectory.Theevidenceisquiteclearthat

40TheMattheweffectreferstoapassageintheBibleattributedtoJesuswherehewaspresentingaparableassociatedwithtalents:“Foruntoeveryonethathathshallbegiven,andheshallhaveabundance:butfromhimthathathnotshallbetakenawayeventhatwhichhehath.”Matthew25:29

48|P a g e

thisintervention(i.e.,materialsaccompaniedbysustainedandintensivementoringsupport)substantiallyaltersteachers’behaviors.Thesebehaviors,inturn,createdailyenvironmentsforchildrenthatincludemoreandhigherqualitylanguage‐andliteracy‐promotinginteractions.Thesechangeshavebeenmaintaineduptothreeyearslater(e.g.,Figure6).Favorablechangesinclassroomenvironmentsandteacherbehaviorsarecloselylinkedinthisstudy,aswellasinpreviousstudies,topositivechangesandacceleratinggrowthofat‐riskpreschoolers’earlyliteracyskills(Linebarger,2006,2007;Linebargeretal.,2004;Princeetal.,2001).Basedonthesesubstantial,pervasive,andconsistentclassroomandteachereffects,itishighlylikelythatchildrenexposedtothisinterventionaspreschoolerswillcontinuetobenefitnotonlybyengaginginliteracyexperiencesandinteractionsprovidedbytheirteachersbutalsobyactivelychoosingto“select,shape,andevoketheirownenvironments”(p.381;Stanovich,1986).Specifically,exposuretoandactiveparticipationintheBTLClassroomInterventionhasthepotentialtoshifttheseat‐riskchildren’strajectoriestomirrormorecloselythetrajectoriesofchildrenwhoareacademicallysuccessfulbyprovidingdevelopmentallyappropriateandhighlyengagingcontentthat,throughaseriesofself‐reinforcingexperiencesandevents,supportstheirburgeoningearlyliteracyskillsand,perhapsevenmoreimportantly,increasestheirdesiresandmotivationstocontinuouslyandactivelysolicitnewliteracy‐specificaswellaseducationally‐generalexperiences(Stanovich,1986).

49|P a g e

ReferencesCohen,J.(1988).StatisticalPowerAnalysisfortheBehavioralSciences(2ndEd.).Mahwah,NJ:

Erlbaum.

CTB/McGraw‐Hill.(1990).Developingskillschecklist.Monterey,CA:CTB/McGraw‐Hill.

Dunn,L.M.,&Dunn,L.M.(2000).PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest—III.CirclePines,MN:AmericanGuidanceService.

Hart,B.,&Risley,R.T.(1995).MeaningfuldifferencesintheeverydayexperienceofyoungAmericanchildren.Baltimore:PaulH.Brookes.

Hedges,L.V.(2008).WhatAreEffectSizesandWhyDoWeNeedThem?ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,2(3),167‐171.

Hill,C.J.,Bloom,H.S.,Black,A.R.,&Lipsey,M.W.(2008).Empiricalbenchmarksforinterpretingeffectsizesinresearch.ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,2(3),172‐177.

Invernizzi,M.,&Sullivan,A.,&Meir,J..(2002).Phonologicalawarenessliteracyscreeningforpreschool(PALS‐PreK).Teachers'Manual.Charlottesville,VA:UniversityPrinting.

Konstantopoulos,S.,&Hedges,L.V.(2008).Howlargeaneffectcanweexpectfromschoolreforms?TeachersCollegeRecord,110,1613–1640

Linebarger,D.L.,(2006).TheBetweentheLionsAmericanIndianLiteracyInitiativeResearchComponent:AReportPreparedfortheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation.Philadelphia,PA:AnnenbergSchoolforCommunication,UniversityofPennsylvania.

Linebarger,D.L.,Kosanic,A.Z.,Greenwood,C.R.&Doku,N.S.(2004).EffectsofviewingthetelevisionprogramBetweentheLionsontheemergentliteracyskillsofyoungchildren.JournalofEducationalPsychology,96(2),297‐308.

Missall,K.N.,&McConnell,S.R.(2004).TechnicalReport:Psychometriccharacteristicsofindividualgrowthanddevelopmentindicators–PictureNaming,Rhyming&Alliteration.Minneapolis,MN:CenterforEarlyEducationandDevelopment.Retrievedfrom:http://ggg.umn.edu/techreports/dissemination.html#TechRep.

Prince,D.L.,Grace,C.,Linebarger,D.L.,Atkinson,R.,&Huffman,J.D.(2002).BetweentheLionsMississippiliteracyinitiative:AfinalreporttoMississippiEducationalTelevision.ReportpreparedforMississippiEducationalTelevisionandWGBHEducational

50|P a g e

Foundation.Starkville,MS:TheEarlyChildhoodInstitute,MississippiStateUniversity.

Stanovich,K.E.(1986).Mattheweffectsinreading:Someconsequencesofindividualdifferencesintheacquisitionofliteracy.ReadingResearchQuarterly,21,360‐406.

Uchikoshi,Y.(2006).Earlyreadinginbilingualkindergartners:Caneducationaltelevisionhelp?ScientificStudiesofReading,10,89‐120.

Walker,D.,Greenwood,C.R.,Hart,B.,&Carta,J.(1994).Predictionofschooloutcomesbasedonearlylanguageproductionandsocioeconomicfactors.ChildDevelopment,65,606‐621.

Whitehurst,G.(2001).TheNCLDGetReadytoRead!screeningtooltechnicalreport.AreportpreparedfortheNationalCenterforLearningDisabilities.NewYork,NY.

Zimmerman,I.L.,Steiner,V.G.,&Pond,R.V.(1992).PreschoolLanguageScale–3.SanAntonio,TX:ThePsychologicalCorporation.

51|P a g e

ThecontentsofthisdocumentweredevelopedunderacooperativeagreementbetweentheUSDepartmentof

Education,theCorporationforPublicBroadcasting,andthePublicBroadcastingSystemfortheReadytoLearn

Initiative,PR#U295A050003.However,thesecontentsdonotnecessarilyrepresentthepolicyofthe

DepartmentofEducationandyoushouldnotassumeendorsementbytheFederalGovernment.

Documents

EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 2008 · 2011-05-13 · EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 ‐ 2008 Deborah