Effect of Early Literacy Intervention on Kindergarten Achievement. Technical Report No. 520.
Phillips, Linda M.; And Others (1990). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED325832
-
examining165Students, gradeK
Little Books Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without 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 Little Books.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test |
Little Books vs. Business as usual |
End of Kindergarten |
Kindergarten Students;
|
42.17 |
37.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test |
Little Books vs. Business as usual |
End of Kindergarten |
Kindergarten Students;
|
41.93 |
37.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test |
Little Books vs. Business as usual |
End of Kindergarten |
Kindergarten Students;
|
41.91 |
37.91 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in kindergarten classrooms across rural and urban locations in Newfoundland, Canada.
Study sample
The study sample included 40 Newfoundland schools divided into three groups: rural (drawing students from one small community), rural collector (drawing students from a number of small communities), and small urban communities. From each of these groups, four schools were randomly selected to participate in the study, each randomly assigned to one of four study conditions: those that used Little Books at home, used Little Books at home and school, used Little Books at school only, and did not use Little Books (comparison group). The study began with 325 students attending 18 kindergarten classes at 12 schools. The analysis sample included 314 students. The area in which the study was conducted has the highest rate of basic and functional illiteracy in Canada and consistently scores below the Canadian national norm on standardized tests.
Intervention Group
Three variations of the Little Books intervention were studied, those that used the program at home only, at school only, or both at home and at school. All three used the Little Books, which use high-frequency words, simple sentences, and thematic topics with which children are familiar. For the home group, school staff gave a new book to each child at the start of each week for the child to take home and read with parents. For the school group, a different book was introduced by teachers each week, and approximately 10–15 minutes each day were devoted to the materials. For the school and home group, the school-only procedures were followed and at the end of each week the teachers sent the Little Book home.
Comparison Group
The control condition used the standard language development program for Newfoundland, Canada.
Outcome descriptions
This review focuses on the results for the Metropolitan Readiness Test (see Appendix A2.1 for a more detailed description of outcome measures). Results for the Emergent Literacy Concepts Test, a test designed for the study, are not included in this review because of unequal testing conditions between the interventions and comparison groups. The posttest included a section that asked students to read words that came from the Little Books, so students in the intervention condition had exposure to these words before the posttest was administered. It is unknown whether or not the comparison condition students had exposure to the words. The authors also used the CIRCUS Listen to the Story test, which is an assessment of oral comprehension and thus falls outside the domains included in the WWC beginning reading review.
Support for implementation
Parents and teachers were trained to use the Little Books. Parents were shown a video in which a parent and child worked with several books. Guidelines were provided by the developers, which gave suggestions about setting up a comfortable reading arrangement, discussing the main idea of the book, reading the book aloud, and eliciting the child to read. Suggestions were also made for use of particular books. Teachers attended a workshop in which they were encouraged to spend 10–15 minutes each day with the Little Books. They were given a specific instructional procedure that involved an opening, modeling, tryouts, and a closing. They were asked to introduce and read the book to the whole class, then work with smaller groups of children reading the book for the next three days. The last day, they were to ask each child to read the Little Book.
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).