Chapter 3: Creative Curriculum: University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness (pp. 55–64). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER) Consortium (2008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
-
examining171Students, gradePK
Teaching Math to Young Children
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2013
Teaching Math to Young Children Practice Guide- 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.
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
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Race Black 85% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Creative Curriculum for Preschool Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- 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 Creative Curriculum for Preschool.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Building Blocks Shape Composition Task |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
1.42 |
1.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
94.07 |
89.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite score |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
0.42 |
0.44 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
86.64 |
85.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development - Primary III (TOLD-PIII): Grammatic Understanding subtest |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
7.70 |
8.44 |
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) Elision subtest |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
8.38 |
8.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Reading Ability III (TERA-III) |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
85.81 |
86.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
99.87 |
101.74 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Creative Curriculum for Preschool vs. teacher-developed, nonspecific curricula |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
87.39 |
91.95 |
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: 54%
Male: 46% -
- 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
Georgia, North Carolina
-
Race Black 85% White 3% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 18 full-day Head Start preschool classrooms in five Head Start centers (two centers with 10 classrooms in Georgia and three centers with eight classrooms in North Carolina).
Study sample
This randomized controlled study, conducted during the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years, included an intervention group that implemented The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool and a comparison group that used teacher-developed curricula with a focus on basic school readiness. The specific features of the comparison curricula are not described in the PCER Consortium (2008) study (Chapter 3). Both teachers and children were randomized within the centers. In 2002–03, the pilot year of the study, 20 teachers (10 in Georgia and 10 in North Carolina) were grouped by education and teacher certification status and then randomly assigned within each group to intervention or comparison conditions. Each of the five participating Head Start centers included both The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool and comparison classrooms. At the end of the pilot year, researchers dropped two North Carolina classrooms because they participated in the state’s More at Four program, had degreed teachers, and had high rates of teacher attrition. In the following year, which was the national PCER evaluation year, children within each center were sorted into blocks on the basis of gender, disability status, and ethnicity, and then randomly assigned to either The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool or comparison classrooms. At baseline, the study included 18 classrooms (nine The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool and nine comparison) and 194 children (97 The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool and 97 comparison). The spring follow-up data collection included 171 children (90 The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool and 81 comparison). Overall attrition at the spring followup was 11.9%. At baseline, children in the study were 4.5 years of age on average; 46% were boys; and 85% were African American, 8% were Hispanic, and 3% were White.
Intervention Group
Teachers in the intervention group implemented The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool, a comprehensive preschool curriculum for children ages 3–5. The curriculum addresses four areas of development: social/emotional, physical, cognitive, and language. The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool requires the physical space of the classroom to be structured into 10 interest areas (blocks, dramatic play, toys and games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and movement, cooking, and computers). Curriculum content includes literacy, math, science, social studies, the arts, technology, and a focus on skills such as observing, exploring, and problem solving. Teachers conduct ongoing child assessments using a Developmental Checklist. In this study, each classroom’s fidelity to the curriculum was rated on a four-point scale ranging from “not at all” (0) to “high” (3) . The average score for The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool classrooms was 2.11 on this measure.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition did not use a specific curriculum; rather, each teacher used a variety of teacher-developed curricula. The specific features of those curricula are not described in the PCER Consortium (2008) study (Chapter 3). Comparison classrooms were rated with the same four-point fidelity scale used in The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool classrooms, which ranged from 0 to 3. The average score for the comparison classrooms using this measure was 1.5.
Outcome descriptions
The outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math. Oral language was assessed with the PPVT-III and the TOLD-P:3 Grammatic Understanding subtest. Print knowledge was assessed with the TERA-3, the WJ-III Letter-Word Identification subtest, and the WJ-III Spelling subtest. Phonological processing was assessed with the Pre-CTOPPP Elision subtest. Math was assessed with the WJ-III Applied Problems subtest, the CMA-A, and the Building Blocks Shape Composition task. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the intervention group were in their second year of implementing the program at the time of the evaluation. The research team provided refresher training to the intervention group teachers. Four (North Carolina) or five (Georgia) training periods were provided to teachers in full- or half-day sessions so that teachers in both states received the same total amount of training. Training topics included choosing and planning in-depth study topics, providing materials and interactions for content learning, and observation-based assessment of children’s learning. Training included a mix of lecture, small group projects, video viewing, and hands-on practical applications. Technical assistance was provided to teachers throughout the school year.
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).