(2008). National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502153
Reviewed: June 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PPVT-III |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.55 |
87.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Language Development: Grammatical Understanding Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.47 |
8.33 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
PPVT-III |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.23 |
89.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Language Development: Grammatical Understanding Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
9.11 |
8.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Applied Problems Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.71 |
87.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated Composite Score |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.55 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Applied Problems Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
92.42 |
90.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated Composite Score |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.57 |
0.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.05 |
95.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.08 |
8.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Early Reading Ability - 3rd Edition (TERA-3) |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.10 |
81.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III) Spelling subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.91 |
87.67 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
102.01 |
99.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III) Spelling subtest |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
99.37 |
97.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Early Reading Ability - 3rd Edition (TERA-3) |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
83.82 |
82.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Problem Behaviors Scale - Teacher form |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.30 |
104.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS) |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.87 |
49.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills scale |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.58 |
104.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Problem Behaviors Scale - Teacher form |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
101.93 |
102.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills scale |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.46 |
97.93 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) |
Literacy Express vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
43.78 |
45.21 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 61% | |
| Other or unknown | 7% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 6% |
The study was conducted in 17 public pre-kindergarten schools located in Florida. All programs were full-day programs.
For the Literacy Express group, 51% of children were Black, 40% were White, and the remaining 9% were multiple races/other/unspecified. Six percent were Hispanic (race unspecified). For the comparison group, 71% of the children were Black, 24% were White, and the remaining 5% were multiple races/other/unspecified. The percentage of students classified as Hispanic is unknown.
Literacy Express is a literacy-focused curriculum that is designed to promote preschool children’s emergent literacy skills. The curriculum is structured around thematic units. The units, and the games and activities within each unit, are sequenced in order of complexity. Each thematic unit includes books that address theme-relevant vocabulary for small- and large-group reading activities. In addition, each unit includes small-group activities that provide children with the opportunity to attend to and practice the skills needed to develop oral language, phonological sensitivity, and print awareness, and to receive individual feedback to mater each developmental level. Small-group activities occur 3-4 times per week and the curriculum provides guidance for teachers on how to group children.
Children in the comparison condition received the High/Scope curriculum materials. The participating school district agreed to provide control teachers with training which included a week long summer institute conducted by High/Scope trainers. In addition, High/Scope personnel and district personnel provided additional training sessions throughout the school year and conducted classroom visits.
Teachers and their aides in the Literacy Express condition participated in a four-day training workshop in the summer before the school year. The first two days of the training included familiarizing teachers and aides with the curriculum materials and provided hands-on experience in leading activities from the curriculum. The last two days of the training were used for team planning. In addition, teachers and aides participated in monthly, two-hour professional development meetings throughout the year in the use of curriculum materials and related topics.
Reviewed: July 2010
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 Literacy Express.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
89.12 |
87.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Shape Composite |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
1.54 |
1.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
0.51 |
0.52 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
90.30 |
87.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development - Primary III (TOLD-PIII): Grammatic Understanding subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
8.11 |
8.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
9.42 |
8.79 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
103.30 |
95.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Early Reading Ability III (TERA-III) |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
82.36 |
81.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Literacy Express vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
89.03 |
87.67 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 61% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 6% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 94% |
The Literacy Express study was conducted with children from 12 schools and 19 classrooms selected from public prekindergarten programs in Florida.
This study, conducted during the 2003/04 and 2004/05 school years, included three intervention groups: Literacy Express, DLM Early Childhood Express supplemented with Open Court Reading, and a control group. Eighteen schools were initially recruited to participate in the study. Sixteen of these were assigned a letter grade of A, B, C, or D as part of Florida’s school grading system (2 schools were not part of the grading system and were dropped from the study). School grades were used as a blocking variable, and schools within each grade were ranked on average number of years of teaching experience. One additional school joined the study late (for a total of 17 participating schools). Schools were then grouped into triplets and randomized into three conditions: Literacy Express (6 schools), DLM (5 schools), and control (6 schools). Although schools were randomized into three groups, this review is restricted to a comparison of Literacy Express with the control group. School is the unit of assignment; if a school had multiple preschool classrooms, all of those classrooms were assigned to the same intervention. The study as reviewed included 6 Literacy Express and 6 control schools and 10 Literacy Express and 9 control classrooms and began with a total of 196 children (99 Literacy Express and 97 control). The parental consent rate was 95% for the combined treatment group and 93% for the control group. At baseline, children in the study averaged age 4.6; 54% were male; and 6% were Hispanic, 30% were Caucasian, and 59% were African American. The analysis sample included between 177 and 188 children, depending on the outcome measure. There was no attrition of schools. Depending on the outcome, child-level attrition ranged from 6% to 10% for Literacy Express and from 2% to 9% for the control group.
Literacy Express is a preschool literacy-focused curriculum that is intended to promote children’s emergent literacy skills. The version of the curriculum used in this study was structured around 11 thematic units (with games and activities in each unit). The version used in this study and the current version of the curriculum sequence the units in order of complexity. Each unit includes children’s books that address theme-relevant vocabulary for small- and large-group reading activities. Each thematic unit includes small-group activities that provide children with the opportunity to attend to and practice skills related to oral language, phonological sensitivity, and print awareness and to receive individual feedback. Small-group activities are conducted three or four times a week. The curriculum provides guidance to teachers on grouping children who are progressing at similar rates. Large-group and extension activities provide opportunities for children to use new skills. Fidelity observations were conducted in treatment and control classrooms during February 2004 and April/May 2004 using the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) tool and the Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education (CIRCLE) observation tools. Observations lasted 2.5 to 3 hours in each classroom. Researchers used site-specific implementation and fidelity data to rate each treatment classroom on the global fidelity measure as High (3.0), Medium (2.0), Low (1.0), or Not at All (0.0). Researchers also provided a global rating for the control group. Literacy Express was rated in the High-Medium range (2.5) on the global implementation fidelity measure, whereas the control group was rated at the Medium level (2.0).
Teachers of control group classrooms were trained to use the High/Scope curriculum. Training provided to teachers in control classrooms included a week-long summer institute conducted by High/Scope trainers prior to the start of the project, additional training sessions throughout the school year conducted by High/Scope and district personnel, and classroom visits by the High/Scope trainer.
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math, all of which were assessed with standardized measures. Oral language was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) and the Grammatic Understanding subtest from the Test of Language Development–Primary III (TOLD-P:3). Print knowledge was assessed with the Test of Early Reading Ability–III (TERA-3) and the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification and Spelling subtests. Phonological processing was assessed with the Elision subtest from the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP).2 Math was assessed with the WJ-III Applied Problems subtest, the Composite Score from the Child Math Assessment–Abbreviated (CMA-A), and the Building Blocks Shape Composition test. Pretesting was done in fall of the preschool year, and posttesting was done in spring of the preschool year. Trained research staff administered all assessments, which were conducted with all children in English. Research staff also observed the study classrooms for three hours twice a year using the ELLCO and CIRCLE observation measures, but these measures are not discussed further in this WWC intervention report. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.5.
Teachers received curriculum training from the Florida research team for four days in July 2003, prior to the start of the 2003/04 school year. The first two days of the training were spent in a workshop setting, and the other two days were used for team planning. The workshop training session familiarized teachers and their aides with the curriculum materials and provided hands-on experience in leading curricular activities. Videotaped training was made available for teachers who could not attend in person. Teachers and aides attended a two-hour training session every other month during the school year.
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