Integrating Literacy and Science Instruction in Kindergarten: Results from the Efficacy "Study of Zoology One"
Gray, Abigail M.; Sirinides, Philip M.; Fink, Ryan E.; Bowden, A. Brooks (2022). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v15 n1 p1-27. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1328060
-
examining792Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
57.41 |
50.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSWeb Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
AIMSWeb Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with an IEP;
|
47.06 |
33.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
86.60 |
90.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
86.90 |
89.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developmental Reading Assessment |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with an IEP;
|
2.80 |
2.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
2.70 |
2.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed science content knowledge test |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed kindergarten reading motivation scale (KRMS) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed kindergarten reading motivation scale (KRMS) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with an IEP;
|
2.50 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Researcher-developed kindergarten reading motivation scale (KRMS) |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
2.40 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage comprehension subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word comprehension subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full intent to treat sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word comprehension subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with an IEP;
|
92.27 |
90.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 3rd Edition (WRMT-III) Passage Comprehension Subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
85.40 |
88.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 3rd Edition (WRMT-III) Word Comprehension Subtest |
Zoology One: Kindergarten Research Labs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English language learners;
|
88.20 |
91.30 |
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.
-
9% English language learners -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 65% No FRPL 35%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 72 kindergarten classrooms located in 21 public schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 37 classrooms to the intervention group and 35 to the comparison group. A total of 792 students in kindergarten were included in the study. Approximately 51% of the students were female, 65% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 9% were English learners, and 7% had an individual education plan. The study did not report race or ethnicity information for the students in the study.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention classrooms received the Zoology One curriculum. The curriculum replaced regular literacy and science instruction for the full school year. The curriculum includes four units, each 9 weeks in duration. Each lesson lasted 120 minutes per day. Unit one is an introduction that orients students to the basics of literacy and books. The second unit covers zoology, the third ecology, and the fourth entomology. The content includes direct instruction on reading, writing, and science, with activities including multiple daily, themed teacher read-alouds, independent reading with support, writing practice related to science topics, hands-on science activities, and arts activities that are related to science themes. Students were expected to read for 30 minutes a day in class and 30 minutes at home.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual literacy and science instruction for the full school year. The comparison group received 120 minutes of literacy instruction per day, plus business-as-usual science instruction. Comparison teachers may have also participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Support for implementation
All intervention teachers received instructional materials and scripts to use with the curriculum. The intervention teachers attended a full day training before the school year began, along with 10 visits (roughly monthly) from coaches. The two coaches that provided support to teachers worked for the curriculum developer. During coaching sessions, the coaches might model components of curriculum instruction for whole class or small-group intervention, confirm teachers’ determinations of student reading levels, and model the use of formative assessment tools. Some teachers (the study does not indicate how many) received additional support from coaches via phone or email between the in-person coaching visits. An unspecified number of other teachers also participated in a half day training on the first science-themed unit.
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).