Curiosity Corner: Enhancing Preschoolers' Language Abilities through Comprehensive Reform.
Chambers, Bette; Chamberlain, Anne; Hurley, Eric A.; Slavin, Robert E. (2001). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457999
-
examining168Students
Curiosity Corner Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2009
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Curiosity Corner.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Visual Receptive Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-year olds;
|
45.49 |
45.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Visual Receptive Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-year olds;
|
42.32 |
42.66 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Expressive Language Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-year olds;
|
39.26 |
37.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Expressive Language Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-year olds;
|
43.58 |
43.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Receptive Language Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
3-year olds;
|
37.76 |
37.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL): Receptive Language Scale |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-year olds;
|
43.10 |
42.58 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
Race Black 68% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 16 preschools (a mix of public and private) in four high-poverty, urban school districts in New Jersey. All of the preschools were in Abbott districts and working to meet Abbott guidelines.
Study sample
The study began with 448 low-income preschool children who ranged in age from two years, seven months to four years, eleven months. At posttest, 316 children were included in the study, with analysis samples ranging from 311 to 315. The three-year-olds were from private early childhood centers (n = 169), and the four-year-olds were from public preschools (n = 147). In the final sample, 68% of the children were African-American, 16% Caucasian, and 11% Hispanic; 49% were female. Eight preschools (public and private) were assigned to the Curiosity Corner intervention group, and eight preschools (public and private) matched on demographic characteristics were used as the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The intervention group children participated in Curiosity Corner during the pilot year of the curriculum. Curiosity Corner was designed with 38 weekly thematic units. Additional information on duration, frequency, and intensity of implementation was not reported.
Comparison Group
The comparison group children participated in the regular early childhood curriculum at their preschool centers.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains were children’s oral language and cognition. The study used three subtests of a standardized test (the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, American Guidance Services Edition): expressive language, receptive language, and visual reception. The study also used the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) to evaluate classroom quality, but the measure is not included in this WWC review because it is not relevant to the topic review. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and 2.4.
Support for implementation
The program provided teachers with detailed lesson instructions in the teacher’s manual and materials for instructional activities. Teachers, teaching assistants, and administrators were trained in two-day initial training sessions, followed by six in-class visits by a Success for All Foundation (SFA) trainer. In addition, teachers were observed, mentored, and supported by Curiosity Corner coaches from the school districts, who were trained by SFA staff over a two-year period. Coaches also offered workshops to help teachers implement 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).