
Interaction between Early Intervention Curricula and Student Characteristics.
Cole, Kevin N.; And Others (1993). Exceptional Children, v60 n1 p17-28. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ470658
-
examining164Students, gradesPK-K
Direct Instruction Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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 Direct Instruction.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (MSCA): Perceptual |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
38.20 |
38.50 |
No |
-- | |
The McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (MSCA): Memory |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
36.90 |
37.30 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (MSCA): Quantitative |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
38.70 |
39.60 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (MSCA): Verbal |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
39.20 |
37.70 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Early Language Development (TELD): Language Quotient |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
89.50 |
88.20 |
No |
-- | |
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R): Scale Score |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
81.70 |
84.60 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA): Reading Quotient |
Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Learning |
Posttest |
3-7 year olds;
|
78.00 |
79.10 |
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: 32%
Male: 68% -
- 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
Washington
-
Race Black 29% Other or unknown 9% White 62%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at the Experimental Education Unit of the University of Washington’s Child Development and Mental Retardation Center. Preschool classes were two hours a day, five days a week for 180 days, and kindergarten classes were five and a half hours a day, five days a week for 180 days.
Study sample
This study included 164 preschool and kindergarten children from a larger study. They had no previous preschool experience. Eighty-one children were in the intervention group and 83 children were in the comparison group. Individual children were first randomly assigned to a Direct Instruction intervention group or a Mediated Learning comparison group; then children in each condition were randomly assigned to classrooms (six preschool classes and two kindergarten classes). All the children had disabilities, including language delay (80%), cognitive delay (50%), fine motor delay (60%), gross motor delay (60%), and socio-emotional delay (60%). The mean age of the children in the sample was 4.75 years, their mean IQ was 76.03, and 32% were female. Sixty-two percent of the children were European-American, 29% were African-American, and 10% were Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Asian, Native American, or another race/ethnicity.
Intervention Group
The WWC designated the Direct Instruction condition as the intervention for this review. The intervention condition included the Direct Instruction programs DISTAR Arithmetic, DISTAR Reading, and DISTAR Language, which are academically-oriented programs characterized by instruction that is fast-paced, teacher-directed, prescribed, and explicit, with all children receiving instruction on a pre-specified sequence of activities at the same time. Although there is information on the length of each school program, there is no information about the duration or frequency of Direct Instruction.
Comparison Group
The WWC designated the Mediated Learning condition as the comparison condition for this review. The Mediated Learning curriculum included units that were two to three weeks long and focused on topics such as identifying patterns, making comparisons, identifying feelings, and planning ahead. Mediated Learning is a cognitively-oriented, non-academic program that emphasizes processes related to input, elaboration, and output. As opposed to the direct approach used by teachers of Direct Instruction, teachers using Mediated Learning scaffold children’s learning around cognitive processes such as classification and sequencing. Although there is information on the length of each school program, there is no information about the duration or frequency of Mediated Learning.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language, print knowledge, cognition, and math. Oral language was assessed with five standardized measures and one non-standardized measure. The standardized measures include: the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities (MSCA) Verbal Scale; the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R); the Test of Early Language Development (TELD); the Preschool Language Assessment Inventory (PLAI); and the Basic Language Concepts Test-Errors (BLCT; criterion referenced measure). The non-standardized measure is the Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) derived from language samples. Print knowledge was assessed with one standardized measure, the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA). Cognition was assessed with three standardized measures, the MSCA Composite Scale (General Cognitive Index), the MSCA Perceptual Scale, and the MSCA Memory Scale. Math was assessed with one standardized measure, the MSCA Quantitative Scale (see Appendices A2.1–2.4 for detailed descriptions of outcome measures). Data analyses were based on the children’s scores after the first year of participation in the four-year study period.
Support for implementation
Each class was staffed by a head teacher and an assistant teacher. Other staff included related services personnel and practicum students. All head teachers had Master’s degrees in special education. Of the eight Direct Instruction head teachers, three received their degrees from a University of Oregon program that emphasized Direct Instruction, four received in-service training from that program, and one was trained on-site. Two of the Mediated Learning teachers were trained in Mediated Learning at Vanderbilt University and two additional teachers received training from Dr. Feuerstein (an Israeli psychologist whose work is the basis for Mediated Learning) and consultation on curriculum and procedures. The five additional teachers in the Mediated Learning program received ongoing professional development from the teachers who were trained at Vanderbilt.
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.
-
Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1991). Individual differences in language delayed children's responses to direct and interactive preschool instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 99-124.
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).