Fischel, J. E., Bracken, S. S., Fuchs-Eisenberg, A., Spira, E. G., Katz, S., & Shaller, G (2007). Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 471–501. http://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675333.
Reviewed: May 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III) |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
85.64 |
85.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Head Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES): Print Convention |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
0.52 |
0.26 |
No |
-- | |
|
Get Ready to Read |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
12.70 |
11.76 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
99.17 |
96.71 |
No |
-- | |
|
Head Start Family and Children Experiences Survey (FACES): Letter Knowledge |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
17.37 |
15.76 |
No |
-- | |
|
Head Start Family and Children Experiences Survey: Book Knowledge |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. High/Scope Curriculum |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
2.41 |
2.48 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| Other or unknown | 43% | |
| Two or more races | 8% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 41% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 59% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in 35 full-day preschool classrooms in 6 Head Start centers in southeastern New York. All centers were part of the same multicenter Head Start program.
Over the three-year study period, the researchers randomly assigned 12 classrooms to the Waterford Early Reading Program, 12 classrooms to the Let's Begin with the Letter People curriculum, and 11 classrooms to the comparison group which implemented the High/Scope curriculum. There were 172 students in the Waterford Early Reading Program, 185 students in the Let's Begin with the Letter People condition, and 150 students in the comparison condition (High/Scope). Across the entire sample, 42% of participating children were Black, 8% were multiracial, 7% were White, and 43% did not report their race. Forty-one percent were Hispanic. Approximately 14% of students were identified as Spanish language dominant. Children on average were 4 years and 4 months old at the start of the study.
Waterford Early Reading Program Level 1 uses computer-based technology to develop students' literacy skills. Computerized instruction was delivered 15 minutes per day, and focused on phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, letter recognition, print concepts, and knowledge of story concepts. Students rotated in groups of two to receive Waterford, as there were two computers in each class. The instructional sequence is centered on each capital letter, followed by lowercase. After every five letters, students are provided an opportunity to review the letters they reviewed. Students are then tested using an Alphabet Review and those who do poorly on the assessment are provided additional instruction. Students are given an opportunity to participate in Play and Practices components throughout the year, where they can choose different review activities in an exploratory environment. This intervention was used in conjunction with the existing High/Scope curriculum.
Waterford Early Reading Program Level 1 was compared to the High/Scope curriculum alone. High/Scope prescribes a daily routine including planning time, work time, cleanup time, recall time, large-group time, small-group time, and outside time. The curriculum uses a "plan-do-review" sequence that is designed to promote social competence, self-confidence, and a sense of community. Children have access to books, play materials, and activities in structured classroom spaces.
Teachers and teaching assistants in the Waterford condition were provided a 3-day training by a professional trainer in August before each school year. Follow-up training visits were held in the fall and spring of each year. During these visits, the trainer assessed fidelity of implementation and provided additional feedback and support to each teacher. The trainer also held group meetings for all teachers and teacher assistants to provide further training in the curriculum.
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