Schetz, K. F. (1994). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11 (1), 51–71.
Reviewed: March 2007
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Words and Concepts.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Language Assessment Instrument (PLAI): Composite Score |
Words and Concepts vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
101.74 |
96.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Words and Concepts vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
41.47 |
41.13 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in five Head Start classes from three Head Start centers in the Roanoke Valley in Roanoke, Virginia.
The study began with 97 low-income four- to five-year-old children. Four children were excluded from the study before assignment because of absences, and an additional 15 children were lost to attrition after assignment, leaving a sample of 78 children. The original sample of 93 children had a mean age of 4.6 years, 55% were female, and 17% were receiving speech-language services. The children were grouped into triads based on their summed pretest score, and one child from each triad was randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison conditions.
The study included two intervention groups: software with programmed instructional interaction with a speech-language clinician (or software with enhancement) and software without the programmed instructional component (or software without enhancement). The software used was from the Words and Concepts series (Words and Concepts I, II, and III ), designed to teach children about nouns and concepts. In the software with enhancement condition, the children and the clinician interacted with the computer (that is, the clinician asked questions related to discourse skills and encouraged verbalization of responses to any questions from the clinician or the computer) to improve discourse skills (that is, receptive and expressive language). In the software without enhancement condition, the clinician gave the children instructions about how to use the software program to enhance their receptive vocabulary and concepts. In both conditions, children primarily participated in pairs twice weekly for 20 minutes a session over a period of 12 weeks. The two groups were combined by the WWC for this review to determine the overall rating of effectiveness. However, the WWC reports findings for the two intervention groups versus the comparison group separately in Appendix A4 and reports findings for the comparison between the two intervention groups in Appendices A5.1 and A5.2.
Children in the no-treatment comparison group received language enrichment through the regular Head Start curriculum, including classroom activities (for example, housekeeping, circle time, dramatic play, finger plays, story time, and songs) and characteristics of the classroom environment (for example, labeling of classroom items). The same comparison group was used for both the software with enhancement and software without enhancement conditions.
The primary outcome domain was children’s oral language, which was measured by two standardized tests: the Preschool Language Assessment Instrument (PLAI-I, PLAI-II, PLAI-III, PLAI-IV, and PLAI-Composite) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). (See Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
The intervention was implemented by five student speech-language clinicians (two undergraduate students and three graduate students), who were trained and supervised by the researcher. Each classroom in the study had access to a speech-language clinician.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Schetz, K. F. (1992). Preschool discourse skill improvement with computer-assisted instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (11), 3821-3822A. (UMI No. 9208433).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube