Roberts, Theresa A; Vadasy, Patricia F; Sanders, Elizabeth A (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583491
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Taught Letter Sounds |
Experimental letter names and sounds instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.18 |
2.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Taught Letter Names |
Experimental letter names and sounds instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.61 |
3.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter Naming Speed |
Experimental letter names and sounds instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.47 |
4.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Writing/spelling |
Experimental letter names and sounds instruction vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.83 |
1.82 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in 6 classrooms across 3 elementary schools in a suburban district near a western U.S. city. Each school had 1 full-day and 2 half-day preschool classes with low-income eligibility thresholds for enrollment. The 2 half-day classes in each building were initially enrolled and determined to be eligible for participation based on their performance on a screening task.
A total of 93 children from 6 classrooms at 3 sites were initially enrolled and determined eligible for participation based on identifying fewer than 4 of the 12 letter names to be taught on a screening task. The study does not provide disaggregated student demographic data by condition. However, across all conditions, the mean age of students is 49.76 (SD = 5.11) months. The analytic sample across all conditions included 42 males, 41 females, and 30 children who were Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The study reports that 83% of children were from families whose incomes were less than 40% of the state median income.
Research assistants provided the intervention for 9 weeks, in 10-minute sessions, 4 days per week. Weeks 7-9 of the intervention were implemented after a 2-week break for individual student testing. The alphabet instructional content intervention aimed to improve alphabet learning and cognitive learning processes. The intervention included 12 letters for instruction chosen based on letter name pronunciation and ease of learning. During weeks 1-6 when a letter was introduced, the instructor inserted the name and the sound. Weeks 7-9 were spent reviewing each of the taught letters.
Trained research team leaders matched the typical letter names and letter sounds condition to the experimental condition by time, small group size, and Monday through Thursday teaching schedule. The authors state that during Weeks 1 through 6, research team instructors implemented the same basic teaching activities for both the experimental letter names and letter sounds and the typical letter names and letter sounds conditions. Under a memorandum of understanding with the school district, participating preschool teachers assigned to the comparison condition agreed to defer whole-class or small-group instruction on specific letters until after the intervention. The typical letter names plus letter sounds (Typical LN + LS) condition with lessons was matched with the experimental instruction for time, small group size, and Monday–Thursday teaching schedule by trained research team teachers.
Research assistant instructors each received a one-day, 8-hour training presented by the first author in the implementation of each of the four conditions. Training emphasized the need to achieve high levels of response accuracy from the children by precisely articulating the letter sounds, adding explicit verbal models for dual language learners, and monitoring student progress and providing corrective feedback. Prior to instruction RAs (instructors and assessors) spent 2–3 hours in the preschool classrooms in which they were assigned to teach or assess, meeting the children, and introducing procedures for transitioning into small groups and participating in activities during which they responded to questions.
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