Supplementing Literacy Instruction with a Media-Rich Intervention: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial [Media-rich early literacy supplement vs. media-rich science supplement]
Penuel, William R.; Bates, Lauren; Gallagher, Lawrence P.; Pasnik, Shelley; Llorente, Carlin; Townsend, Eve; Hupert, Naomi; Dominguez, Ximena; VanderBorght, Mieke (2012). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v27 n1 p115-127. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ947504
-
examining396Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Media-rich early literacy supplement)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Letter Sounds |
Media-rich early literacy supplement vs. Other intervention |
4 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening PreK (PALS-PreK): Letter name knowledge |
Media-rich early literacy supplement vs. Other intervention |
4 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening PreK (PALS): Beginning Sound Awareness |
Media-rich early literacy supplement vs. Other intervention |
4 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 51%
Male: 49% -
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
California, New York
-
Race Asian 10% Black 28% Native American 3% Other or unknown 4% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 53% Not Hispanic or Latino 47%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 80 preschool classrooms that served primarily low-income children in the New York City and San Francisco metropolitan areas.
Study sample
Sixty-eight percent of the overall sample of children were low-income and 26 percent of children had a mother with less than a high school diploma. 51 percent of children were female, 53 percent were Hispanic, 28 percent were African American, 10 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 6 percent were White, and 3 percent were Native American.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received the PBS Kids Raising Readers Curriculum Supplement. The intervention condition was a literacy-focused curriculum supplement with digital media materials and coaching. The curriculum supplement focused on developing four early literacy skills: letter naming, identification of letter sounds, understanding of story and print concepts, and phonological awareness. The curriculum supplement took 10 weeks to implement and was intended to provide participating children with 25 hours of activities. These hours were in addition to the literacy program already in place within the participating centers.
Comparison Group
The comparison group supplement focused on science and included media elements with a 10-week science supplement video that consisted of full episodes of Sid the Science Kid (produced by KCET/Los Angeles with Jim Henson Productions) and self-contained “focused viewing” segments from Peep and the Big Wide World (produced by WGBH Educational Foundation). Teachers guided children in exploring science content that was conceptually linked to transformation and change. Activities and instructional content were based on everyday experiences that were easily observable with the five senses. Teachers assigned to the comparison group also received coaching; teachers provided parallel training and guidance to coaches about how to support implementation.
Support for implementation
Coaches provided assistance to teachers aimed at supporting their implementation of the supplement. To develop the relationship between coaches and teachers, orientation sessions were held where coaches exchanged contact information with teachers and communicated their goals and expectations. Coaches reviewed materials that had been shipped to teachers and that included all the digital and print content required to implement the supplement. In the field, in the first four to five weeks of the supplement, coaches were instructed to lead activities that had been scheduled that day, co-lead them with teachers, or observe as teachers implemented the activities, as appropriate. In subsequent weeks, the study team gave coaches discretion as to how many times to visit sites, though they continued to make weekly contact with sites to complete implementation logs. After the first five weeks, coaches could decide how often to visit classrooms, in consultation with the study team directors. If a site was having difficulty with implementation, then the coach was to visit the site.
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).