Effectiveness of Scaling up a Vocabulary Intervention for Low-Income Children, Pre-K through First Grade [World of Words vs. business as usual]
Neuman, Susan B.; Samudra, Preeti; Danielson, Katie (2021). Elementary School Journal, v121 n3 p385-409 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1296957
-
examining211Students, gradePK
World of Words (WOW) Intervention Report - Preparing Young Children for School
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2023
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for World of Words (WOW).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test - 4th Edition (EOWPVT) |
World of Words (WOW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: PK;
|
90.50 |
82.50 |
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.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
-
Race Black 36% Other or unknown 63% White 1% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 61% Other or unknown 39% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 95% No FRPL 5%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 24 prekindergarten classrooms in 12 schools in a large metropolitan area of the United States.
Study sample
The students in the prekindergarten sample had a mean age of 56.6 months, and 52% were female. Approximately 36% of the students were Black, just under 1% were White, and about 63% came from some other racial background. The sample included approximately 61% Hispanic students. Approximately 15% of students in the broader sample made up of multiple grade levels had an identified disability. Among the participating schools, the percentage of students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch ranged from 91% to 100%.
Intervention Group
The intervention, an in-school supplemental curriculum, was carried out over 21 weeks and involved science-focused whole-class shared book reading. Intervention lessons occurred at the beginning of each school day and lasted approximately 12-15 minutes. During intervention implementation, the teachers implemented the five core components of intervention lessons with high fidelity (average fidelity score of 4.75 on a 5-point scale). The five core components included introducing new vocabulary words, using picture cards to provide child-friendly definitions, engaging in shared reading with special prompts for queries/comments, linking words to concepts highlighting the similarities and differences in categorical properties, and involving children in post-reading discussions. Teachers were also able to choose whether or not to use non-core elements of the curriculum depending on the needs of their students; these non-core elements (referred to as curriculum "negotiables") were described to teachers prior to intervention implementation.
Comparison Group
Classrooms in the comparison condition continued with their usual morning meeting. Typically, this included book reading from their classroom library. Teachers in the comparison condition received ongoing coaching from the school district throughout the year, but no additional materials or instructional programs were provided to the teachers.
Support for implementation
Prior to the intervention, intervention condition teachers attended a one-day professional development training. Facilitators reviewed the core components of the intervention and the theory behind it, and also provided the teachers with the instructional materials and time to review the materials. The teachers worked in groups to examine the alignment of the materials with their standards. In grade-level groups, the teachers also watched two videos of teachers enacting a lesson using the intervention materials. Teachers were then asked to identify the core elements of program in these videos, which were also described to the teachers as the “nonnegotiable” components of the program. The videos were later discussed with teachers individually by a coach assigned to help them in the beginning of intervention implementation. Coaches were graduate students in education with a teaching background. Each coach visited the classroom twice a week for about 30-minutes during the first few weeks of implementation. Coaches modeled lessons for the teacher, cotaught the lesson when asked, and demonstrated how to support the core elements. Following each session, coaches provided feedback to the teacher. After the first few weeks, the coaches increasingly turned intervention implementation over to the teacher and continued to observe once a week during implementation of the intervention.
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).