Mages, W. K. (2018). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45(4), 224–237.
Reviewed: July 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Telephone Task |
Theatre-in-Education program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.56 |
3.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
PPVT-III |
Theatre-in-Education program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
43.79 |
45.23 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study occurred in the New York City area in 12 Head Start programs across 4 boroughs. There were 4 Brooklyn sites, 4 Manhattan sites, 2 Queens sites, and 2 Bronx sites. The research occurred in the normal head start classrooms throughout the regular instructional period, and the intervention group did have some after school rehearsal activities. Six of the 12 sites were assigned to the intervention group whereas the other six were assigned to continue following the Head Start curriculum as usual.
The sample consisted of 77 female students and 78 male students between the ages of 3 and 4. Half of the children were from homes where only English was spoken, and the other half came from homes where only another language was spoken or where a combination of English and another language were spoken. All children were from low socioeconomic status families. The sample of students included in the review comprised 155 students: 72 children in the intervention group and 83 children in the comparison group.
The Early Learning Through the Arts (ELTA): New York City Wolf Trap Program was designed to improve literacy skills through a theater and drama curriculum. ELTA is a theatre-in-education (TIE) program. The curriculum included rehearsals for the theatre-in-education dramas called An-Nyoung Dal, Hello Moon and La Feria de Sevilla. The curriculum also included teacher-led storytelling and picture-book-based drama activity. The program was approximately 20 weeks long. The intervention included 14 days of in-class activities with the Head Start children and over 13 days of non-classroom activities (after school) that provided training, orientation, and reflection activities for the Head Start teachers and directors.
The comparison condition consisted of normal, business-as-usual (BAU) Head Start programming.
The intervention was supported by researchers at the Creative Arts Team (CAT) which is affiliated with the City University of New York (CUNY) system of universities. The intervention, Early Learning Through the Arts (ELTA) was implemented via researchers affiliated with the CAT program. The intervention was facilitated by two ELTA company members and 8 actor-teachers who were professionally trained college-educated actors with professional theater experience. They rehearsed for 20 days from 9 AM to 3:30 PM in preparation for the program. They were systematically observed by the researcher and field notes were taken during each observed session. The actor-teachers were from ELTA and taught the curriculum. Head Start teachers were given professional development training to continue using drama to promote literacy in the classroom following the end of the intervention.
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