Preschoolers with Developmental Speech and/or Language Impairment: Efficacy of the Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) Curriculum
Wilcox, M. Jeanne; Gray, Shelley; Reiser, Mark (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED598842
-
examining289Students, gradePK
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL), phonological awareness subtest |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.74 |
91.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Lower-case letter recognition |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.60 |
23.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Upper-case letter recognition |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Letter names |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.57 |
18.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Beginning sound awareness |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 2nd Edition: Preschool (CELF-P2) Core Language Subtest - English |
Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.27 |
89.52 |
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: 30%
Male: 70% -
Urban
-
Race Asian 3% Black 2% Native American 2% Other or unknown 39% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75%
Study Details
Setting
The 58 schools in this study were recruited from 15 school districts. All of these districts had preschool programs through Part B of IDEA for young children with developmental disabilities, including children with developmental speech and/or language impairment (DSLI). These preschool programs also enrolled children with typical development. The authors did not specify the location or urbanicity of these districts beyond that they were in a large metropolitan area.
Study sample
All teachers were female and most were white (88%), followed by Hispanic (6%), multiracial (3%), and African-American/Black (2%). One teacher did not provide race/ethnicity information. All students in the study qualified for IDEA Part B preschool services by state criteria. None had an intellectual disability or other developmental or physical issue outside of developmental speech and/or language impairment (DSLI). Most (162) had a language or speech and language impairment, and 127 had only a speech impairment. Most (202) were boys and most were white (54%), followed by Hispanic (25%), multiracial (12%), Asian (3%), African-American/Black (2%), and American Indian (2%). Students were between 46 and 63 months old. Most (80%) students spoke English and it was the primary language in their homes. For the remaining students, English and another language were spoken at home.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition is a whole-class curriculum that embeds incidental and explicit oral language and early literacy teaching practices within planned learning opportunities. TELL includes the use of several practices known to support early literacy and language development, including general supporting strategies, explicit language teaching strategies, alphabet and print concepts, phonological awareness, and emergent writing. The curriculum includes 34 weeks of instruction with 14 thematic units (each lasting 2 weeks), with review weeks conducted every 5 weeks. Prior to review weeks teachers track student progress using curriculum-based measures to determine review week goals and lessons.
Comparison Group
In the comparison condition, teachers used whatever curriculum they would have used if they were not participating in the study. Nearly half (47%) reported using no curriculum, 44% reported using either State Standards or "Teaching Strategies Gold," 6% reported using the Creative Curriculum, 2% reported using Splash into PreK, and 1% reported using High Scope.
Support for implementation
Teachers receive one 6-hour training session held before the school year starts. That session is followed by 10 group content training sessions (20 hours total with three in August and September and the rest conducted between October and April); individual in-class coaching (weekly in fall semester and biweekly in spring semester); and weekly reflective discussions. Coaches have master's degrees in early childhood special education or reading and had taught and/or coached teachers in preschool classrooms serving young children with developmental disabilities for over 10 years. The coaching cycle was made up of modeling, observation, feedback, reflection, and planning for the next visit. Coaches also checked on the fidelity of 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).