The effects of a drama-based language intervention on the development of theory of mind and executive function in urban kindergarten children
Smith, Heather (2010). Georgia State University.
-
examining83Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Georgia Wolftrap (GWT) program)
- Promoting Social and Behavioral Success for Learning in Elementary Schools Review Protocol 2.0
- Review Standards 4.0
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Theory of Mind (TM) Total |
Georgia Wolftrap (GWT) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
14.72 |
14.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Theory of Mind (TM) Total |
Georgia Wolftrap (GWT) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
14.72 |
14.59 |
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: 58%
Female: 58%
Female: 58%
Male: 42%
Male: 42%
Male: 42% -
Urban, Urban, Urban
-
- 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, Georgia, Georgia
-
Race Black 94% Black 94% Black 94% Other or unknown 6% Other or unknown 6% Other or unknown 6%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in kindergarten classrooms in six elementary schools in a large metropolitan (urban) public school district (presumably in or near Atlanta, Georgia).
Study sample
Participants were mostly African American (94%) with other racial or ethnic representation not described, and less than half (42%) were male.
Intervention Group
The intervention, Wolf Trap Early Learning Program (also called the Georgia Wolf Trap (GWT) program) is a drama-based language intervention. It was developed and delivered by an alliance of theater and education professionals to provide arts-integration experiences for young children through this kind of drama-based language arts program. The GWT program was implemented by teaching artists from a local theater company and was conducted in thirteen 13 45-50 minute lessons over a three-month period (February-April, 2008). This instruction took the place of the students' typical instruction in language arts. During the lessons, the teaching artists read books to the children and led in a range of activities involving "elaborating on the story themes, creating new characters and plots, and role-playing" (p. 70). Children also viewed a professional stage production of a children's plays (pp. 69-71).
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction in language arts.
Support for implementation
The main support for implementation was that the intervention was provided by professionals trained to deliver educational programs (this one in particular) to children in schools.
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).