Fischel, J. E., Bracken, S. S., Fuchs-Eisenberg, A., Spira, E. G., Katz, S., & Shaller, G. (2007). Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 471–501.
Reviewed: June 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 Let's Begin with the Letter People®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
85.66 |
85.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Dictation subtest |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Get Ready to Read! (GRTR) Screen |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter Knowledge subtest |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Print conventions subtest |
Let's Begin with the Letter People® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 41% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 59% |
The Let’s Begin with the Letter People® study was conducted with children from six full-day Head Start centers in southeastern New York state (four centers in Year 1; one additional center in Year 2; and one additional center in Year 3) during the 2001–02, 2002–03, and 2003–04 school years. All centers were part of the same Head Start grantee.
This randomized controlled study included three groups: Let’s Begin with the Letter People®, the Waterford Early Reading™ Level One, and a comparison group. Preschool classrooms in six centers were randomly assigned to one of the two curricular approaches overlaid onto their standard curriculum (High/Scope® Educational Approach), or to a business-as-usual comparison group that used only the High/Scope® Educational Approach over 3 years of the study. In Year 1 of the study, nine classrooms participated, with three classrooms assigned to each group. In Year 2, 15 classrooms participated in the study, with five in each group. In Year 3, 11 classrooms participated, with four in each intervention group and three in the comparison group. In Years 2 and 3, some teachers from the intervention groups were randomly selected to continue in the study (remaining in that curriculum group), some teachers from the comparison group could opt for random assignment to one of the intervention groups, and some new teachers were randomly assigned to fill out the study groups. Data from all three study years were analyzed together, yielding a sample of 35 study classrooms (12 Let’s Begin with the Letter People® classrooms, 12 Waterford Early Reading™ Level One classrooms, and 11 comparison classrooms). Thus, although the study used a randomized controlled trial design to assign classrooms to intervention or comparison groups, the study included some classrooms randomly assigned with unequal probabilities of assignment not accounted for in the analysis. As a result, the study must demonstrate baseline equivalence between the intervention and comparison group samples of children used in the analysis of outcomes. An author query was conducted to obtain the study data necessary to establish equivalence at baseline for the outcome measures (i.e., unadjusted means and standard deviations of the outcome measures for the intervention and comparison groups). Baseline equivalence was established from the data provided by the study authors. A total of 507 children participated in the study across all three conditions over the 3 years of the study. Children in the study sample had a mean age of 4 years, 4 months at the time of pretest. The sample of children included African-American (42%), Hispanic (41%), multiracial (8%), Caucasian (7%), and other race/ethnicity (2%). Approximately 14% of the sample were Spanish-language dominant at Head Start entry. The evaluation of Let’s Begin with the Letter People® included 21 of the 35 study classrooms, and the analysis sample included 336 children (186 Let’s Begin with the Letter People® and 150 comparison).
The intervention group classrooms used the Let’s Begin with the Letter People® curriculum overlaid onto the existing High/Scope® curriculum, which all programs had used for at least 10 years before the study. Teachers incorporated the activities, lessons, and materials from Let’s Begin with the Letter People® into their daily classroom instruction, while continuing to follow the High/Scope® curriculum. Let’s Begin with the Letter People® also includes take-home activity sheets designed to be completed with the help of an adult; however, the study did not assess the degree to which parents engaged their children in these activities. A second intervention group was assigned to the Waterford Early Reading™ Level One curriculum; the effects of this intervention on the study sample are not discussed in this report.
The business-as-usual comparison group classrooms used the standard classroom curriculum (High/Scope®), which prescribes a daily routine (planning time, work time, cleanup time, time for recall, large-group time, small-group time, and outdoor play) and aligns with Head Start’s performance standards, focusing on language, literacy, and other school readiness skills, such as numeracy, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making.
The outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language and print knowledge. Oral language was assessed with the PPVT-III. Print knowledge was assessed with five measures: the WJ-R Letter-Word Identification and Dictation subtests, the Letter Knowledge and Print Conventions subtests of the storybook assessment developed for the Head Start FACES study, and the GRTR screening instrument. Spanish-language dominant children were excluded by the authors from analyses involving the WJ-R Dictation subtest, as these children did not receive the English-language version of this measure at pretest. For the GRTR, Letter Knowledge, and Print Conventions assessments, the pretest administration for Spanish-language dominant children used Spanish instructions, with assessment questions administered in English. Pretests were administered in October/November, and posttests in May/June, corresponding to the Head Start academic year. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Teachers and teacher assistants in the Let’s Begin with the Letter People® group participated in a 3-day curriculum training each August conducted by a professional trainer from Abrams & Company (the developer and distributor of this curriculum). The trainer visited each classroom in the Let’s Begin with the Letter People® condition in the fall and spring of each intervention year and provided individual feedback to teachers. Fidelity was measured during these visits using a checklist to assess the degree of implementation in two domains: classroom organization and teacher behavior. Implementation by all teachers in each year of the study was determined to be accurate and appropriate. Fischel et al. (2007) reported that additional training was offered by the trainer; however, details of the frequency, content, or degree of participation in these trainings were not provided. Teachers and assistants in the Let’s Begin with the Letter People® group and the business-as-usual comparison group participated in a weeklong in-service High/Scope® curriculum training at the beginning of the school year. Support was provided in the classroom by educational and child development specialists throughout the school year.
Reviewed: July 2007
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 Waterford Early Reading Level One.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
86.92 |
85.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehension |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
0.85 |
0.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Get Ready to Read! (GRTR) Screen |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
12.84 |
11.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Print conventions |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
0.44 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letters Known |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
18.03 |
15.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
98.69 |
96.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Dictation subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
90.37 |
88.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
Book knowledge |
Waterford Early Reading Level One vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
preschool children;
|
2.41 |
2.53 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 41% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 59% |
The study took place in 27 unique classrooms across conditions in six Head Start centers (four in year one, one additional center in year two, and one additional center in year three) in southeastern New York. All centers were part of the same Head Start grantee. In each year of the study, children attended full-day preschool, five days a week.
Twenty-seven classrooms were randomly assigned to one of three groups (Waterford Early Reading Level One™, Let’s Begin with the Letter People®, or a business-as-usual comparison group) across the three years of the study. In year one of the study, six classrooms were assigned to the Waterford Early Reading Level One™ or business-asusual comparison groups (three Waterford classes and three business-as-usual comparison classes). In year two of the study, eight new classrooms were assigned to these groups (three Waterford classes and five business-as-usual comparison classes) and two randomly selected Waterford classrooms from year one participated again. In year three of the study, five new classrooms were assigned to these groups (two Waterford classes and three business-as-usual comparison classes) and two randomly selected Waterford classrooms from year one participated again. The total study sample across all three groups and all three study years included preschool children with a mean age of 4 years, 4 months at the time of pretest. The children were 42% African-American, 41% Hispanic, 8% multi-racial, 7% Caucasian, and 2% were some other race/ethnicity. About 14% of the total sample was Spanish-language dominant at Head Start entry.
Intervention group classrooms used the Waterford Early Reading Level One™ curriculum, which was overlaid on the existing High/Scope curriculum. Each child participated in the computerized instruction for 15 minutes a day and the related books and videos were incorporated into small- and large-group time within the High/Scope framework.
The business-as-usual comparison group classrooms used the standard classroom curriculum (High/Scope), which prescribes a daily routine (planning time, work time, cleanup time, time for recall, large-group time, small-group time, and outdoor play) and aligns well with Head Start’s performance standards, focusing on language, literacy, and other school readiness skills such as numeracy, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making.
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language and print knowledge. Oral language was assessed with a standardized measure [the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III)] and a non-standardized measure (Comprehension). Print knowledge was assessed with six measures: Get Ready to Read! Screen (a non-standardized measure), Letters Known (a non-standardized measure), the Letter Word Identification and Dictation subtests from the Woodcock Johnson-Revised (WJ-R; a standardized measure), Book Knowledge (a non-standardized measure), and Print Conventions (a non-standardized measure) (see Appendices A2.1–2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Teachers and teacher assistants in the Waterford Early Reading Level One™ group participated in a one-day curriculum training each August conducted by a Pearson Digital Learning trainer. Each teacher could be supervised by the trainer while implementing the curriculum and were taught ways to incorporate the materials (videotapes and books) into the curriculum. The trainer visited each Waterford Early Reading Level One™ classroom mid-year to review summary data to assess classroom progress and provide support and additional training. Teachers and assistants in the Waterford Early Reading Level One™ group and the business-as-usual comparison group participated in a week-long in-service High/Scope curriculum training at the beginning of the school year. Support was provided in the classroom by educational and child development specialists throughout 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