Children's Literacy Initiative's Blueprint for Early Literacy: Year 2 Evaluation Report [Blueprint for Early Literacy vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum)]
McCarty, Alyn; Comly, Rachel; Strouf, Kendra; Rigsby, Matthew (2018). Research for Action. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593711
-
examining1,591Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Blueprint for Early Literacy)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test IV (PPVT-IV) |
Blueprint for Early Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 2017/2018;
|
121.10 |
115.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test IV (PPVT-IV) |
Blueprint for Early Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Cohort 2 2018/19;
|
119.67 |
116.77 |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
8% English language learners -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 22 high-quality pre-K centers in north, west, and south Philadelphia, including four school-based centers and 18 community-based providers. The centers were located in high need, low-income areas. Forty-two percent of classrooms were Head Start classrooms and five classrooms were part of School District of Philadelphia universal pre-k program.
Study sample
The average student was 4.3 years old at the start of the school year and about 8 percent were identified by their teachers as English Learners.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received the Blueprint for Early Literacy curriculum supplement, which aims to improve language and literacy skills through play-based instruction. The curriculum, which was implemented throughout each school year, is coupled with instructional practices structured around three key elements: (1) Message Time Plus, a daily practice where teachers brainstorm, plan, and write text in front of children and then read the text aloud, (2) Intentional Read Aloud (IRA), a daily practice where teachers model fluent reading and facilitate discussions with children before, during and after reading the text, and (3) Power of Three, promoting a motto of “take care of yourself, each other, and our classroom” as a tool to promote a classroom culture of responsibility and engagement. Specifically, teachers shift away from focusing on classroom rules and towards shares classroom responsibilities. As part of the program, teachers participate in professional development and are provided with daily lesson plans, more than 100 children’s books, and 10 structured and sequential theme guides. The curriculum can either be used on its own or as a supplement to an existing curriculum. In this study, for instance, the intervention group received Blueprint alongside Creative Curriculum.
Comparison Group
In both the comparison and intervention conditions Creative Curriculum was the adopted core curriculum except for one center in the intervention condition which was using Acero's Ready to Shine and one in the comparison condition which was using HighScope.
Support for implementation
Blueprint implementation was carried out with the support of the Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI). CLI provided ongoing professional development and training for all lead and assistant pre-K teachers during three half-day trainings. During these sessions, teachers were introduced to Blueprint, the two instructional approaches at the core of the program (Message Time Plus and Intentional Read Aloud), and the concepts of the Power of Three. CLI also provided content-focused coaching during which each lead teacher was paired with a coach who provided 20 hours annually of in-person, content-focused coaching. Coaching was tailored to the needs of each teacher and generally geared towards increasing understanding of the curriculum and confidence and comfort with the curriculum.
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).