(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 |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.43 |
99.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Language Development: Grammatical Understanding Subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.59 |
9.55 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
PPVT-III |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
99.78 |
100.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Language Development: Grammatical Understanding Subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
10.02 |
9.99 |
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 |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.89 |
96.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated Composite Score |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.63 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Applied Problems Subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
100.08 |
98.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated Composite Score |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.67 |
0.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III) Spelling subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.77 |
96.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.39 |
9.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.32 |
103.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Early Reading Ability - 3rd Edition (TERA-3) |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.81 |
88.34 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III) Spelling subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
107.85 |
106.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
109.50 |
108.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Early Reading Ability - 3rd Edition (TERA-3) |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
92.09 |
91.45 |
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 |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.78 |
94.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS) |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.06 |
55.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills scale |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
103.17 |
110.37 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
46.17 |
44.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Problem Behaviors Scale - Teacher form |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
101.14 |
100.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Social Skills scale |
Language-Focused Curriculum (LFC) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
97.46 |
97.39 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 71% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 96% |
The study was conducted in Head Start and public pre-kindergarten classrooms from two counties in Virginia, one rural county and one suburban county.
For race, 21% were Black, 71% were White, and the remaining 8% were multiple races/other/not specified. Five percent of the overall sample were Hispanic.
The Language-Focused Curriculum was designed for use with 3- to 5-year-old children with language limitations, including those with language impairment, children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and English language learners (ELLs). The curriculum includes thematic organization of content by day, week, and month; use of daily dramatic play to teach and use new linguistic concepts; use of teacher-led and child-let activities to organize daily experiences; explicit attention to oral language goals across the day; and teacher use of eight key "language stimulation techniques" when interacting with children in the classroom. The curriculum emphasizes the daily inclusion of teacher-child conversations within teacher-led and child-led interactions.
Teachers in the comparison condition reported using the High/Scope curriculum. The study reports that the extent of High/Scope curriculum implementation in the comparison condition classrooms was not formally assessed.
Teachers in the intervention condition participated in a 3-day training workshop in August before the school year started. The workshop content included background information on language development. A follow-up training was held in November, where teachers attended an onsite 2-hour workshop to discuss their concerns with implementation, review feedback from their classroom observations, and review language stimulation techniques and appropriate use. Teachers attended another 3-hour workshop in January/February, and this workshop focused on language stimulation and implementation activities.
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