Russell, J. (2005). Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. (62329791).
Reviewed: March 2013
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 Ladders to Literacy.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Type token ratio (TTR) |
Ladders to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
0.52 |
0.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mean length utterance (MLU) |
Ladders to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
3.36 |
3.45 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 12% | |
| White | 71% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study took place in 12 Head Start classrooms in two urban and four rural areas in southern New Hampshire.
This study was a posttest-only design (no pretest was possible due to difficulties in obtaining parental consent for study participation). The study was conducted with children from 12 Head Start classrooms in the 2002–03 school year. Twelve teachers participated in the study. The classrooms were selected in 2002 from a list of prospective study participants and then randomly assigned to either an intervention or a comparison group. The researchers first identified four urban full-day classrooms and randomly assigned two to the intervention group and two to the comparison group. They also selected (a) two urban half-day classrooms with high numbers of Spanish-speaking children, (b) two additional urban half-day classrooms, (c) two suburban/rural classrooms from towns with a kindergarten program, and (d) two classrooms from towns with no kindergarten program. From each group, one classroom was randomly assigned to the intervention and one to the comparison group. Study eligibility was limited to children speaking English as their primary language and not enrolled in a special education program. Among children meeting these eligibility criteria, the study author randomly selected 60 children to participate (33 intervention and 27 comparison). Of the 60 children selected for the study, 34 children received parental consent to participate in the study (18 intervention and 16 comparison). The analysis sample meets attrition standards for the Early Childhood Education topic area, as described in its review protocol. At study enrollment, children in the analysis sample averaged 4.7 years of age, 65% were male, 71% were Caucasian, 12% were Hispanic, 6% were African American, and none of the children were identified as having a disability.
Intervention classrooms implemented Ladders to Literacy as a supplementary curriculum to The Creative Curriculum®. Teachers were trained to implement 18 language and literacy activities (of 60 that were available) across three domains (print/book awareness, metalinguistic awareness, and oral language). Fidelity of implementation was assessed twice during the study year, first in January/February 2003 and again in March/April 2003. For both the intervention (Ladders to Literacy plus The Creative Curriculum®) and comparison classrooms (The Creative Curriculum® alone), fidelity for The Creative Curriculum® was assessed using a checklist published by The Creative Curriculum® publishers. Fidelity to the Ladders to Literacy curriculum was assessed using an implementation checklist prepared by the Granite Ladders project staff. In the intervention group, implementation of both curricula was characterized as “moderate,” averaging 52%–61% of The Creative Curriculum® activities and 41%–54% of the Ladders to Literacy activities.
The comparison group implemented The Creative Curriculum® without Ladders to Literacy. The Creative Curriculum® is a comprehensive curriculum for 3- to 5-year-old children. It addresses four areas of development: social/emotional, physical, cognitive, and language development. The curriculum required the physical space of the classroom to be structured into 10 interest areas: blocks, dramatic play, toys and games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and movement, cooking, and computers. Time was also allotted for outdoor activities. The 10 interest areas were designed to address curriculum content such as literacy, math, science, social studies, the arts, and technology, as well as process skills such as observing, exploring, and problem solving. Fidelity of implementation of The Creative Curriculum ® in the comparison group classrooms was assessed using a checklist published by The Creative Curriculum® publishers. Implementation was characterized as “moderate” for comparison group classrooms, with teachers implementing 46%–48% of the strategies included in The Creative Curriculum®.
To measure oral language for posttests, researchers analyzed samples of children’s speech and the MLU and TTR calculations. The children were assessed after at least four months of exposure to the curriculum. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Both intervention and comparison teachers received at least one day of training on The Creative Curriculum®. Intervention group teachers received an additional 2 days of training on Ladders to Literacy activities in early fall 2002. Technical assistance to implement Ladders to Literacy activities was available to the intervention teachers, if needed.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube