Early Literacy Intervention for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Varying English Language Proficiency Levels
Kuhn, Jocelyn; Albers, Craig A. (2022). Journal of Applied School Psychology, v38 n4 p283-315. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1367355
-
examining11Students, grades1-2
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Sound Partners)
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each eligible outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, and there are a sufficient number of phases and assessments per phase to demonstrate an intervention effect.
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
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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.
-
73% English language learners -
Female: 27%
Male: 73% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Asian 73% Black 9% Two or more races 9% White 9% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in a public urban elementary school in the Midwest that served students in kindergarten through grade 2.
Study sample
The sample was composed of 11 students who were recruited based on the school's fall universal screening results. This screening was conducted to identify students who were at risk of academic failure and in need of Tier 2 or 3 English literacy intervention. Eight students were English Learners (ELs) and three students were native English speakers. Eight of the students were Asian, one was White, one was Black, and one student was identified as multiracial.
Intervention Group
This study examined Sound Partners, a supplementary reading intervention for students in grades K–3. Sound Partners focuses on teaching discrete literacy skills, including explicit phonological awareness and phonics skills. The intervention took place during one-on-one sessions with a trained literacy tutor. Sessions were about 30 minutes in length and took place four days per week. Students were initially enrolled in the intervention for eight weeks, and then students were provided with additional intervention sessions on an as-needed basis, as determined by the researchers and school staff. In addition to the standard materials included in the Sound Partners intervention kit–such as lesson plans, sound cards, and books–the interventionists used individualized student engagement reinforcers such as positive behavior charts, small prizes, and certificates.
Comparison Group
The baseline condition was business as usual for the school, with at least five data points over three or more weeks. The school in which the study was conducted was implementing School-Wide Title 1 programming, Spanish/English dual-language immersion, response-to-intervention activities, and positive behavior supports.
Support for implementation
All interventionists were graduate students trained to use Sound Partners as a part of a workshop and who completed training quizzes before beginning the intervention. A licensed psychologist supervised the interventionists throughout the study as a part of a practicum course, and interventionists received individual coaching as necessary. The intervention is manualized, delivered after tutors receive standardized training, and the study authors document high treatment fidelity (p. 292).
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).