Spencer, Trina D.; Moran, Meghan; Thompson, Marilyn S.; Petersen, Douglas B.; Restrepo, M. Adelaida (2020). AERA Open, v6 n1. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1248442
Reviewed: February 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CUBED Assessment: Narrative Language Measures (NLM) Listening- English |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.91 |
2.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Preschool (CELF-P) Sentence Structure (SS) subtest- English |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.23 |
7.01 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Assessment of Story Comprehension (ASC) |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.24 |
2.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Preschool (CELF-P) Word Structure (WS) subtest- English |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.18 |
4.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Preschool (CELF-P) Expressive Vocabulary (EV) subtest- English |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.21 |
7.47 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
CUBED Assessment: Narrative Language Measures (NLM) Listening- Spanish |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.09 |
7.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Preschool (CELF-P) Expressive Vocabulary (EV) subtest- Spanish |
Multitiered dual-language instruction – Spencer et al., (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.22 |
16.66 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 99% | |
| White | 1% |
| Hispanic | 95% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 5% |
The study took place in 25 Head Start preschool classrooms in a southwestern state.
The analytic sample included 81 Spanish-English dual-language children between the ages of 3 and 5 enrolled in preschool at a Head Start center. The study authors identified students to participate in the study who performed below age expectations on English language assessments. Demographic data were not available for all children in the analytic sample. Of the children in the analytic sample with available demographic data, 56.8 percent were female, 35.8 percent were male, 1.2 percent were white, and 95.1 percent were Hispanic. The primary language for 71.6 percent of children was Spanish, while both English and Spanish were the primary languages for 16.0 percent of children. No child had an Individualized Education Plan. Of the 25 preschool classrooms included in the study, 68.0 percent were half-day and 32.0 percent were full-day. Children in 18 classrooms attended preschool on Monday through Thursday, while children in the remaining 7 classrooms attended preschool on Monday through Friday. Sixty-eight percent of teachers spoke fluent Spanish. Fifty-six percent of teachers were white, 40.0 percent were Hispanic, and 4.0 percent were American Indian. The highest level of education among the 25 teachers was as follows: 16.0 percent of teachers had a high school diploma, 44.0 percent had an associate's degree, 36.0 percent had a bachelor's degree, and 4.0 percent had a graduate degree. The researchers randomly assigned 12 classrooms to the intervention condition and 13 to the comparison condition.
Preschool children in the multitiered dual-language instruction intervention condition received oral language instruction using the Puente de Cuentos narrative curriculum. The curriculum consisted of 72 stories, 36 stories in English and 36 stories in Spanish. The stories were covered in three units of instruction, with 12 stories per language in each unit, over an eight to ten week period. Each story included two target vocabulary words and a set of five illustrations of the target words. During each lesson, teachers or teaching assistants read a story and then guided children through a series of activities designed to learn the target vocabulary word meaning and retell the story. Complex sentence structures were introduced as the units progressed. Children in a typical intervention classroom received two large-group (Tier 1) lessons in English, two small-group (Tier 2) lessons in Spanish, and two small-group lessons in English per week. Three of the 12 intervention classrooms did not have a Spanish-speaking teacher or teaching assistant so children in those classrooms received the large-group and two small-group lessons in English only. Additionally, 10 children in five of the intervention classrooms did not receive small-group instruction because their classroom included more children who were eligible to participate in the intervention than space available for the small-group instruction. Parents of children in the intervention group also received family engagement activities in Spanish. The family engagement activities featured the 72 stories from the Puente de Cuentos curriculum. The family engagement activities included instructions for parents to help their children use the target words and retell the story.
The comparison group received business-as-usual instruction. Preschool children in the comparison group primarily received classroom instruction in English and in large groups. Spanish instruction was occasionally used in comparison classrooms if the teacher was Spanish-speaking.
Classroom teachers and teaching assistants attended a full-day training prior to the start of the school year. The training consisted of 13 video modules and practice teaching a lesson. Each module was 5 to 15 minutes in length and provided information on the program and guidelines for classroom instruction. The teachers received flash drives with the video modules to reference as needed throughout the study. Research assistants provided 1 to 2 weeks of coaching support at the start of the intervention. Throughout the study, research assistants visited each classroom one or two times per week to provide support, administer the assessments, and conduct fidelity observations.
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