Improving school readiness of high-risk preschoolers: Combining high quality instructional strategies with responsive training for teachers and parents
Landry, S. H., Zucker, T. A., Williams, J. M., Merz, E. C., Guttentag, C. L., & Taylor, H. B. (2017). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 38–51.
-
examining430Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for The Early Education Model (TEEM))
- 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) Print Knowledge subtest |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
22.67 |
21.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Phonological Awareness subtest |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
12.73 |
12.24 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Print Knowledge subtest |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
21.47 |
18.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Phonological Awareness subtest |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
11.84 |
10.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-regulation Bear/Dragon task |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.22 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-regulation gift delay - bow task |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
0.22 |
0.25 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Self-regulation gift delay - wrap task |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
0.20 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-regulation Bear/Dragon task |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
0.20 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-regulation gift delay - bow task |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
0.27 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Book reading engagement |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
3.47 |
3.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE-30) parent score |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.77 |
4.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children's Behavior Questionnaire effortful control composite - parent |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.75 |
4.76 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Book reading enthusiasm/initiative |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students. ;
|
10.06 |
8.32 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Book reading shared enjoyment |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students. ;
|
3.30 |
2.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Book reading engagement |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
3.55 |
3.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ) School Liking subscale |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
4.59 |
4.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ) School Avoidance subscale |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
1.33 |
1.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children's Behavior Questionnaire effortful control composite - parent |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
4.76 |
4.71 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE-30) parent score |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
4.82 |
4.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire effortful control composite - teacher |
The Early Education Model (TEEM) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
This is the subsample of Spanish-speaking students.;
|
4.80 |
4.85 |
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.
-
39% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 29% White 1% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 70% Not Hispanic or Latino 30%
Study Details
Setting
The settings were 6 Head Start centers in the Houston and Austin, TX metropolitan areas.
Study sample
The average age of children in the study was 4.37 years (range = 3.18–5.99). Fifty percent of the children were female, 66% were Latino/Hispanic, and 28% were African-American. About half (48%) spoke English in the home, 35% of the sample spoke Spanish in the home, and 17% spoke both English and Spanish. Most children (96%) qualified for free lunch.
Intervention Group
Teachers randomly assigned to The Early Education Model (TEEM) condition participated in a 2-day initial training, which introduced teachers to components of the TEEM framework and to all intervention topics such as classroom organization, setting up a schedule, language development, phonological awareness, reading books to support listening comprehension and vocabulary, letter knowledge and mathematics instruction. TEEM teachers received 14 2-hour in-class coaching sessions approximately biweekly (4 hours per month), and met with their coach for 15–30 minutes for a reflective follow-up conversation with feedback on strengths and areas to improve, including the use of progress monitoring data to inform instruction. Coursework included between 16–20 weekly afternoon sessions for 2 hours each through a platform called eCIRCLE.
Comparison Group
If needed, a core curriculum from the state approved list was purchased for all classrooms (TEEM and comparison) according to the choice of the school/district; in most cases, no curriculum was needed.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the TEEM condition received in-class coaching, coursework, progress monitoring, and instructional resources as described above. In addition, TEEM teachers received supplemental kits including materials to support classroom management and school readiness instructional materials (Lakeshore “Ready to Read Toolkit”).
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).