Promoting Early Literacy through Rhyme Detection Activities during Head Start Circle-Time.
Majsterek, David J.; Shorr, David N.; Erion, Virginia L. (2000). Child Study Journal, v30 n3 p143-51. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626919
-
examining40Students, gradePK
Phonological Awareness Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it is a secondary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
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 Phonological Awareness Training.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Phonological Awareness Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2006
- 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 Phonological Awareness Training.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rhyme detection test |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Semantic training |
Posttest |
3-5 year olds;
|
5.40 |
4.31 |
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: 45%
Male: 55% -
- 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
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a Head Start program in Washington State.
Study sample
The study included 40 low-income three- to five-year-old preschool children. The mean age of the intervention group was 55.2 months; the mean age of the comparison group was 54.3 months. Forty-five percent of the sample was female, and all children included in the analyses spoke English as their primary language. Four groups of children were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison conditions.
Intervention Group
The intervention group participated in Phonological Awareness Training that focused on the concepts of rhyming and rhyme detection. The children were introduced to these concepts using pictures from DaisyQuest software and objects from a rhyme box. Children generated rhyming words for the objects in the box. Each teaching session began with a review of the previous session’s activity. The intervention group participated in nine 10-minute sessions during their regular circle time over a four-week period.
Comparison Group
The comparison group participated in training with a semantic emphasis (i.e., a focus on word meaning), with activities focusing on synonyms, comparative-superlative, position in space, and reasoning. The comparison group participated in nine 10-minute sessions during their regular circle time over the same four-week period.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domain was children’s phonological processing. This domain was assessed with one researcher-developed measure called the rhyme detection test. (See Appendix A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Implementation of both the intervention and comparison conditions was conducted by the first author of the study. The WWC found no reason to believe that the person implementing the intervention and comparison conditions was not equally trained and motivated to implement each condition.
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).