EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 2008 · 2011-05-13 ·...
Transcript of EVALUATION OF THE BETWEEN THE LIONS MISSISSIPPI LITERACY INITIATIVE 2007 2008 · 2011-05-13 ·...
![Page 1: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
EVALUATIONOFTHEBETWEENTHELIONS
MISSISSIPPILITERACYINITIATIVE2007‐2008
DeborahL.Linebarger,Ph.D.
Children’sMediaLab
AnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationUniversityofPennsylvania
March19,2009
![Page 2: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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]
![Page 3: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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.
![Page 6: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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***
![Page 7: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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.
![Page 9: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
![Page 10: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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.
![Page 11: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13|P a g e
Figure1.GeneralClassroomEnvironmentSubscaleDifferencesbyGroupAcrossWave
![Page 14: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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.
![Page 15: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15|P a g e
Figure3.Language,Literacy,andCurriculumSubscaleDifferencesbyGroupAcrossWave
![Page 16: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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.
![Page 17: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
IGDIPictureNaming 14.26 16.74 13.61 13.59 16.34 17.86
OVERALL
IGDIPictureNaming 13.85 15.57 13.59 13.36 14.64 16.03
![Page 22: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26|P a g e
Figure11.LowerCaseLetterNamingSpeedbyGroupAcrossWave
![Page 27: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27|P a g e
Table4.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllLetterKnowledgeIndicesbyAgeandGroup Treatment Maintenance Control
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
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
![Page 28: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31|P a g e
Table5.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllPhonemicAwarenessIndicesbyAgeandGroup
Treatment Maintenance Control
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
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
IGDIInitialSoundsFluency 8.98 12.69 5.90 16.06 7.47 11.06
AnyLetterSounds? 60.0% 76.9% 70.6% 70.6% 29.3% 56.9%
LetterSoundsTotal 2.84 7.08 5.04 8.84 1.91 3.92
LetterSoundsRate 5.95 10.58 9.41 11.06 5.81 9.32
OVERALL
IGDIInitialSoundsFluency 7.55 10.70 7.58 13.28 7.88 10.68
AnyLetterSounds? 51.6% 76.8% 21.1% 51.1% 25.2% 50.5%
LetterSoundsTotal 3.18 7.47 4.39 7.07 3.31 4.85
LetterSoundsRate 6.67 10.47 7.74 9.40 7.08 8.96
![Page 32: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33|P a g e
Comprehension
Therewasasignificant2‐wayinteractionbetweengroupandwave37(Figure17).Childreninboththetreatmentandcontrolgroupsoutperformedtheirpeersinthemaintenancegroupatthepost‐
test.
37 F(2,288)=15.26,p<0.01
Figure17.ComprehensionScoresSplitbyGroup
![Page 34: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34|P a g e
Table6.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansforAllPrintConventionsIndicesbyAgeandGroup
Treatment Maintenance Control
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
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
![Page 35: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36|P a g e
Table7.Pre‐TestandPost‐TestMeansfortheCombinedEarlyLiteracyIndicatorbyAgeandGroup Treatment Maintenance Control
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
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
![Page 37: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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.
![Page 38: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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
![Page 39: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
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
EAvs.AAachievementgap 0.21
EAvsnon‐EAachievementgap 0.35
LowSESvs.MiddleSESachievementgap 0.37
LowSESvs.HighSESachievementgap 0.96
0.69 0.24
CombinedEarlyLiteracyTask
EAvs.AAachievementgap 0.25
EAvsnon‐EAachievementgap 0.39
LowSESvs.MiddleSESachievementgap 0.40
LowSESvs.HighSESachievementgap 1.00
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)
![Page 42: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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
![Page 43: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43|P a g e
reachedtheestablishedbenchmarks66.7%ofthetime.SeeFigure19.
Figure13.BenchmarkComparisonsAcrossGroups
![Page 44: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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
![Page 45: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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
![Page 46: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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.
![Page 47: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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
![Page 48: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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).
![Page 49: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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
![Page 50: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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.
![Page 51: 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](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042023/5e7bcdfa9ea2ec546341d281/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51|P a g e
ThecontentsofthisdocumentweredevelopedunderacooperativeagreementbetweentheUSDepartmentof
Education,theCorporationforPublicBroadcasting,andthePublicBroadcastingSystemfortheReadytoLearn
Initiative,PR#U295A050003.However,thesecontentsdonotnecessarilyrepresentthepolicyofthe
DepartmentofEducationandyoushouldnotassumeendorsementbytheFederalGovernment.