Promoting the Development of Preschool Children's Emergent Literacy Skills: A Randomized Evaluation of a Literacy-Focused Curriculum and Two Professional Development Models
Lonigan, Christopher J.; Farver, JoAnn M.; Phillips, Beth M.; Clancy-Menchetti, Jeanine (2011). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v24 n3 p305-337. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915825
-
examining722Students, gradePK
Literacy Express Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- 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 Literacy Express.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Word Span subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
8.86 |
8.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Rapid Object Naming subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
48.21 |
49.57 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Non-Word Repetition subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
9.07 |
9.55 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Language Scale- IV (PLS-IV): Expressive Communication subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
53.35 |
50.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
8.86 |
7.43 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
14.15 |
13.47 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
17.55 |
14.70 |
Yes |
|
|
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% -
- 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
California, Florida
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 1% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 35% Not Hispanic or Latino 65%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 18 preschools in Tallahassee, Florida, and 30 preschools in Los Angeles, California. The majority of the preschools (77%) were Head Start programs
Study sample
Eighteen preschools from Tallahassee, Florida, and 30 preschools from Los Angeles, California, were randomly assigned to a Literacy Express workshop group, a Literacy Express workshop plus mentoring group, or a control condition. This resulted in 15 preschools in each of the two Literacy Express groups and 18 preschools in the control group. The study began with 808 preschool children ranging in age from 36 to 69 months (mean age = 50.63 months). At posttest, 722 children remained in the sample and ranged in age from 36 to 69 months (mean age = 50.71 months). The sample included 55.7% African-American children, 35.2% Latino/Hispanic children, 7.9% Caucasian children, and 1.1% children of other races and ethnicities. Forty-nine percent of the children were female; 52% of the children in the California sites and 1% of the children in the Florida sites were Spanish-speaking English language learners. All children were considered at risk for academic difficulties as determined by pretest scores on a measure of cognitive performance.
Intervention Group
Preschools in the intervention group participated in a Literacy Express plus professional development via workshops group (“workshop group”) or a Literacy Express plus professional development via workshops and mentoring group (“mentoring group”). Literacy Express is a preschool literacy-focused curriculum that is intended to promote children’s emergent literacy skills. The curriculum used in this study (an earlier version) was structured around 11 thematic units (with games and activities in each unit) that were sequenced in order of complexity. In the earlier and the current versions of this curriculum, each unit includes children’s books that address theme-relevant vocabulary for small- and large-group reading activities. Each thematic unit includes small-group activities that provide children with the opportunity to attend to and practice skills related to oral language, phonological sensitivity, and print awareness and to receive individual feedback. Small-group activities are conducted three or four times a week. The curriculum provides guidance to teachers on grouping children who are progressing at similar rates. Large-group and extension activities provide opportunities for children to use new skills. The workshop group teachers participated in two-day workshops at the beginning of the school year and three half-day workshops during the school year. The mentoring group teachers participated in the same workshops and received regular classroom visits by a trained project mentor.
Comparison Group
Classrooms in the business-as-usual comparison group participated in the preschool’s standard curriculum, which in most cases was High/Scope or Creative Curriculum®
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and cognition, all of which were assessed with standardized measures. Oral language was assessed with the Expressive Communication subtest from the Preschool Language Scales–IV (PLS-IV). Print knowledge was assessed with the Print Knowledge subtest from the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP). Phonological processing was assessed with the Blending and Elision subtests from the Pre-CTOPPP. Cognition was assessed with three subtests from the Pre-CTOPPP: Non-Word Repetition, Word Span, and Rapid Object Naming. Pretesting was done in fall of the preschool year, and posttesting was done in spring of the preschool year. Trained research staff administered all assessments in a quasi-random order at pretest and posttest. All assessments were conducted with all children in English. Research staff also observed the study classrooms for three hours twice a year to determine implementation fidelity and to administer two general measures of classroom language and literacy, but these measures are not discussed further in this WWC intervention report. For a more detailed description of the outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.5.
Support for implementation
The research staff provided all materials and training for the Literacy Express intervention groups. Classroom teachers and aides attended a two-day curriculum-specific professional development workshop at the start of the school year, as well as three half-day curriculum-specific professional development workshops throughout the school year. In all workshops, staff participated in both teacher-directed and hands-on components. Classroom staff in the mentoring group received regular classroom visits throughout the school year from trained project teacher-mentors in addition to the professional development activities.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Farver, J. A. M. (2005). Best practices in promoting literacy in young ethnic minority children: Lessons from the United States. Beijing, China: Soong Ching Ling Foundation and UNICEF.
-
Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Development, assessment, and promotion of preliteracy skills. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 91–114.
-
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Phillips, B. M. (2005, June). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models. Paper presented at the 12th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
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).