Results from a three-year i3 impact evaluation of the Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI): Implementation and impact findings of an intensive professional development and coaching program.
Parkinson, J., Salinger, T., Meakin, J., & Smith, D. (2015). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
-
examining130Teachers, gradesK-2
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2016
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO): Lanugage and Literacy |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Teacher;
|
3.28 |
2.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO): Classroom Environment |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Teacher;
|
3.68 |
3.30 |
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.
-
7% English language learners -
- 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
Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
-
Race Asian 1% Black 66% White 7% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in 78 schools belonging to four school districts across three states (Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). The districts were selected based on commitment to professional development and large numbers of students who were either low-income or low-performing. All schools were eligible for Title 1 grants.
Study sample
The authors do not present sample characteristics of the students in the analytic sample. However, Common Core Data from the schools in the sample indicate that the school racial composition was predominantly Black (66% Black, 25% Hispanic, 7% White, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander). On average the schools included 84% students with free/reduced-price lunch, 7% English language learners, 13% students with disabilities, and 42% at or above reading proficiency levels.
Intervention Group
The Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) program implemented in this study had four components: 1) Teachers were provided with literacy resources for their classrooms (e.g., books), 2) Teachers were provided professional development opportunities, training seminars, and on-site coaching, 3) A model teacher was chosen for each grade to receive more extensive coaching and support, and 4) School leadership was instructed on how to sustain improvements caused by the training. Coaches assist teachers in implementing evidence-based practices in their classrooms. CLI provides support over a three year period. In the first year of the study, teachers were given at least 98 hours of professional development, including 50 hours of coaching, three days of training at a summer institute, and three days of seminars. During the second year of the program teachers were given 49 professional development hours. During the third year of the program, teachers were given 39 professional development hours.
Comparison Group
The schools randomized to the comparison condition did not receive the CLI intervention, but instead received services as usual (i.e., any teacher professional development training normally provided by the district).
Support for implementation
The Children's Literacy Initiative is a nonprofit organization that provides support for implementing the CLI program by providing training and coaching in the CLI program. No other information is provided about support for implementation.
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).