Effective Early Literacy Skill Development for Young Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners: An Experimental Study of Two Methods
Farver, Jo Ann M.; Lonigan, Christopher J.; Eppe, Stefanie (2009). Child Development, v80 n3 p703-719 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840084
-
examining63Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Literacy Express in English and Spanish)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Definitional Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
52.28 |
41.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Receptive Vocabulary |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
31.79 |
28.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Receptive Vocabulary Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
27.03 |
23.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Definitional Vocabulary Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
32.66 |
25.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
23.90 |
16.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
8.04 |
6.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Blending subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
14.43 |
12.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
7.40 |
5.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Blending Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
12.71 |
10.59 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Print Knowledge Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
16.54 |
12.83 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
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
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 10 classes in a Head Start preschool program located in a Los Angeles neighborhood. The intervention was delivered in separate classrooms near the children's regular classrooms and was delivered in small groups. The comparison students received instruction in their regular classrooms.
Study sample
The characteristics of the sample pertain to the overall sample of children that was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (this review focused on only the 31 children who were assigned to the English/Spanish version of the intervention and the 32 children who were assigned to the comparison condition). The sample included 43 girls and 51 boys and all of students were Spanish speaking. The authors report that all of the children's parents had Mexican or Central American ancestry but does not provide racial or ethnic breakdowns for students. The authors also report the mother’s educational levels which ranged from less than 6th grade to college degree.
Intervention Group
The intervention was taught for approximately 20 minutes a day, 4 times a week for roughly 21 weeks. The authors created parallel Spanish-language versions of the core small-group activities and materials from the Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum. Instruction started in Spanish; during week 9, instruction was transitioned from Spanish to English instruction over 3–4 weeks (12–16 training sessions). During the transition, the instructors reviewed each of the lessons that had been previously given in Spanish, and delivered them in English. Beginning around week 14, all lessons were delivered in English. During the reading activities, the instructors used scaffolding techniques (such as asking specific types of ‘‘Wh-’’ and open-ended questions, modeling, using expansions and repetitions) to encourage children to discuss the pictures in the book and the narrative. The scaffolding shifted from simple to more complex over time. The phonological awareness activities involved word games that used picture-puzzles and other manipulatives, and followed the developmental sequence of phonological awareness. The print knowledge activities involved pictures, letters, and writing to teach the alphabet (letter names and letter sounds), and later included the sounds associated with letters. Aside from these pullout sessions, the children were instructed using High/Scope.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison condition received their business as usual High/Scope Curriculum in their regular classrooms.
Support for implementation
Over 2 months, one of the authors trained four bilingual graduate research assistants to implement the intervention. The instructors also received a curriculum guide.
Literacy Express Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Literacy Express.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Definitional Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
49.87 |
41.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Receptive Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
31.21 |
28.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Definitional Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
52.28 |
41.23 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Receptive Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
31.79 |
28.33 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Receptive Vocabulary subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
27.03 |
23.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Definitional Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
47.45 |
41.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Definitional Vocabulary subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
32.66 |
25.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Receptive Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
30.62 |
28.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Receptive Vocabulary subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
24.58 |
23.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Definitional Vocabulary subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
25.90 |
25.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
8.00 |
6.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
14.37 |
12.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtestv (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
7.40 |
5.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
7.96 |
6.37 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
8.04 |
6.37 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
12.71 |
10.59 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
14.43 |
12.69 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
14.31 |
12.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtestv (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
5.94 |
5.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Blending subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
11.13 |
10.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
22.01 |
16.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
23.90 |
16.61 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Transitional group;
|
16.54 |
12.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
20.11 |
16.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Print Knowledge subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
English-only group;
|
13.14 |
12.83 |
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.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
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
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a Head Start program in inner-city Los Angeles, California
Study sample
Ninety-six Spanish-speaking English language learners in a Head Start program were randomly assigned, balancing for gender, to one of three conditions: (1) the High/Scope curriculum supplemented with small groups using Literacy Express in English only, (2) the High/Scope curriculum supplemented with small groups using Literacy Express beginning in Spanish and transitioning to English, and (3) the High/Scope curriculum only. Children were assigned to conditions within 10 classrooms. During the course of the year, two children moved, resulting in a sample of 94 children (31 in English-only Literacy Express, 31 in the transitional Literacy Express, 32 in the control group). All children were born in the United States and lived in households in which Spanish was the primary language. Children receiving resource help for speech and language delays were not eligible for the study. The children in the sample were age 54.5 months, on average, and 46% were female.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of activities in dialogic reading, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. Dialogic reading activities included scaffolding techniques, such as asking “Wh-” and open-ended questions and using expansions and repetitions to encourage children to talk about the book. Phonological awareness involved word games that used picture puzzles to teach children that words were made of smaller sound units. Print knowledge activities taught children about the alphabet, including recognizing letters and their associated sounds. The intervention was delivered to small groups of four to five children in separate classrooms adjacent to the regular classrooms. The groups met for 20 minutes, four times a week, from mid-November to mid-May and were led by trained bilingual graduate students. In the Spanish-transition condition, instruction was in Spanish for the first eight weeks, followed by three to four weeks of transition. All lessons starting around week 14 were delivered in English. Children in the English-only condition received the full 21 weeks of lessons in English.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received the High/Scope curriculum, which was typically offered in the center.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were oral language, print knowledge, and phonological processing, all of which were assessed with standardized measures. Oral language was assessed with the Receptive Vocabulary and Definitional Vocabulary subtests from the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP). Print knowledge was assessed with the Print Knowledge subtest from the Pre-CTOPPP. Phonological processing was assessed with the Blending and Elision subtests from the Pre-CTOPPP. Pretesting was done in fall of the preschool year, and posttesting was done in spring of the preschool year. Assessments were administered by trained research staff who were not involved in the delivery of the intervention and were blind to the children’s treatment status. Assessments were conducted with all children in English and Spanish; only the English assessments are used in the rating of the intervention. Outcomes for the Spanish assessments are included in Appendix 4.1–A4.3, A4.5, A4.7, and A4.9. For a more detailed description of the outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.5.
Support for implementation
Four bilingual graduate students were taught to deliver the intervention by one of the study’s authors, who also supervised the intervention. No other information on training is provided.
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).