Download pdf - Early Reading First Annual Evaluation Report Language … · Early Reading First Annual Evaluation Report Enhanced Language and Literacy Success Project ... look for teachers to encourage

ERFEvaluationReport2011 Page1of25

EarlyReadingFirstAnnualEvaluationReportEnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccessProject

Year3:2010‐2011SchoolYear

SandraJoWilson,Ph.D.RachaelTanner‐Smith,M.A.

PeabodyResearchInstitute,VanderbiltUniversityIntroductionTheMetropolitanNashvillePublicSchools/VanderbiltUniversityEarlyReadingFirstproject,EnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccess(ELLS),contractswithSandraWilson,AssociateDirectorofthePeabodyResearchInstituteatVanderbiltUniversity,andRachaelTanner‐Smith,ResearchCoordinator,toconductanindependentevaluationoftheprogram.Theevaluationhasfocusedontwoaspectsoftheprogram:(1)anevaluationofcurriculumimplementation,and(2)detailedassessmentsofchildoutcomes.ThisaddendumtotheAnnualPerformanceReportfor2010‐2011willprovideinformationaboutbothoftheseaspectsoftheevaluation.EvaluationofCurriculumImplementationTheEnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccess(ELLS)projectbeganclassroomimplementationinJanuary,2009intenprekindergartenclassroomshousedinfiveelementaryschoolsintheMetropolitanNashvillearea.InYear2(2009‐2010)oftheproject,twoteacherslefttheirschoolswhilefivenewteachersjoinedtheproject.InYear3(2010‐2011),oneteacherleftherschoolandwasreplacedwithanewteacher.InYears2and3,atotalofthirteenteachersparticipatedintheELLSproject.ForYear3,twoobservationswereplannedforeachclassroom,oneintheFallof2010andoneintheSpringof2011.Oneteacherateachofthetimepointswasnotavailableforobservation.TheresultsforYear3thusrepresentobservationdatafrom12classroomsin7schools.TheFallobservationoccurredbetweenSeptemberandNovember,2010.TheSpringobservationoccurredbetweenMarchandMay,2011.Weobservedtheclassroomsusingthreeinstruments.ThefirstinstrumentwasamodifiedversionoftheOWLCurriculumImplementationChecklistsuppliedwiththeOWLcurriculum.Second,weusedanobservationalsystemcalledtheNarrativeRecord,whichrecordsthetypesandtimingofclassroom“episodes.”Theepisodesarecodedfortheamountoftimeeachoccurred,scoredforOWLcurriculumcontent,andratedforclassinvolvementandteacherinstructionalquality.Third,weusedtheEarlyLanguageandLiteracyObservation(ELLCO)PreKToolandtheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklistfromtheEarlyLanguageandLiteracyClassroomObservationToolkit.


OWLCurriculumImplementationChecklistAnimplementationchecklistisprovidedwiththeOWLcurriculum,whichwemodifiedintwowaysfortheEarlyLanguageandLiteracySuccess(ELLS)project:(1)toincludemorespecificdetailaboutsomeaspectsofthecurriculumthatwerenotincludedintheoriginalversion;and,(2)toincludeitemsaboutsomeoftheadditionalwritingactivitiesthatwereimplementedassupplementstotheOWLcurriculum.Thechecklisthas10sections,eachcoveringanaspectoftheOWLcurriculumoracomponentoftheELLSprogram.Theteacherswereratedonwhethertheydeliveredthecomponentornot,andonthequalityofthedelivery.Followingisashortdescriptionofthecriticalfeaturesofeachcurriculumcomponent.

MorningMeeting:teachersareexpectedtodemonstratetheactivitiesplannedforCentersTimethatday,makeconnectionstothecurriculumunit,anddefineandusethecurriculumvocabulary.

Interactivewriting,groupsettings:theELLSprojectsupplementstheOWLCurriculumbyaddingactivitiesthatfocusonchildren’sdevelopingwritingskills.Teachersareexpectedtowriteduringlargegroupactivities,todrawattentiontowriting,andencouragechildrentoparticipateininteractivewriting.

CentersTime:observerslookforopencentersthatarestockedwithappropriatematerials;childrenshouldbeallowedtomovebetweencenters,andteachersshouldhaveasystemformanagingthechildren’smovementbetweencenters.Inaddition,teachersareexpectedtohavesustainedinteractionswithchildrenandusecurriculumvocabulary.

WritinginCenters:thisisanELLSprojectsupplementtotheOWLCurriculum;teachersareexpectedtoincorporatewritingintocenteractivities,invitechildrentoparticipateinwriting,anddemonstratethepurposesandmeaningofwriting.

StoryTime:teachersareexpectedtoreadprescribedOWLCurriculumbooksasrecommendedinthecurriculummanual;teachersshoulddefineandusevocabulary,respondtoquestions,andencouragethoughtfuldiscussion.

Songs,WordPlay,&Letters(SWPL):thiscomponentofthecurriculumisfocusedonphonologicalawarenessskills.Teachersareexpectedtohavematerialspreparedandmonitorandmanagechildren’sattentionduringthissegment.Observersalsolookforteacherstoencouragechildparticipationandfollowthetasksprescribedinthecurriculummanual.

SmallGroups:teachersandaidesareexpectedtocreateaseriesofrotatingsmallgroupseachdaythatencouragelearningandindividualdevelopment;observerslookforfunctional,orderlygroups,connectionsbetweensmallgroupactivitiesandthecurrenttheme,hands‐onactivitiesforallstudents,andanenvironmentthatencourageschildren’squestionsandexpressiveness.

Let’sFindOutAboutIt/Let’sTalkAboutIt:thissegmentofthecurriculumfocusesoninquiryandsocialskillsdevelopment.Observerslookforconnectionstothecurrenttheme,andforteacherstohelpchildrenmakeobservationsandexpressideas.

AdaptationsforELLsorSpecialNeedsChildren:forteacherswithEnglish‐languagelearnersorspecialneedschildren,observersdetermineifteachersareawareof


studentswhomightrequireadaptationsandgaugeteachers’skillinmakingnecessaryadaptations.

Transitions:transitionsshouldbewellorganizedandharmonious,andusedforeducationalpurposeswhenpossible.

Table1showstheaveragecurriculumfidelityscoresforallthreeprojectyears.Thetableshowseachobservationaveragedacrosstheteachersobservedatthattime,alongwiththenumberofpointspossibleforeachcurriculumcomponent.Inthethirdyear,allcurriculumcomponentswereobservedintheclassroomsthatwereobserved,butnotallteacherswereabletosuccessfullyimplementallcomponentsofthecurriculumonthedaytheywereobserved.Increasesinfidelitywereobservedinallcurriculumareasfromthefirstprojectyear,thoughthefinalMorningMeetingscorewaslowerintheSpringofYear3thanitwasinYear1.IncreasesinfidelitywerenotedbetweenFallandSpringinYear3onthefollowingcurriculumareas:StoryTimeandSupportforELLs.

Table1.AverageCurriculumImplementationScoresforEachCurriculumArea

Y1:(n=10)

Y2:Fall(n=13)

Y2:Spring(n=13)

Y3:Fall(n=12)

Y3:Spring(n=12)

PointsPossible

MorningMeeting 7.1 7.2 8.1 7.7 6.4 11

Writing:inGroups 4.7 7.2 8.7 8.3 8.3 9

CentersTime 18.3 21.0 22.0 19.7 19.4 24

WritinginCenters 10.9 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 18

StoryTime 23.3 26.8 28.9 26.8 28.9 30

Songs,WordPlay&Letters 14.6 16.3 17.5 17.2 16.8 19

SmallGroups 19.1 31.8 32.2 35 30 42

Let’sTalk/FindOutAboutIt 6.4 8.6 8.2 10.8 10.3 12

Support&AdaptationsforELLs* 3.0 3.7 3.7 2.9 3.3 4

Transitions 3.8 4.5 5.6 5.3 4.6 6*InYear1only6of10teachershadELLstudents.InYear2,onlysevenofthe13teachershadELLstudents.InYear3only9of12teachersobservedhadELLstudents.TheremainingteacherswerenotratedontheELLitems.

Summary/Conclusions:ImplementationRatings Thefollowingstrengthswerenoted:

WritinginGroupSettings,StoryTime,Songs,WordPlay&Letters,Let’sTalk/FindOutAboutItandSupportforELLssegmentswereimplementedwiththehighestfidelityofallthecurriculumcomponents.

ImplementationfidelityincreasedfromYear2toYear3onLet’sTalk/FindOutAboutIt.


ImplementationfidelityincreasedfromFalltoSpringinYear3onStoryTimeandSupportforELLs.

Thefollowingareaswerenotedasareasforimprovement:

TeachershadthemostdifficultywiththeMorningMeeting,CentersandSmallGroupssegments.

Implementationfidelitydeclinedinsomeareasbythefinalobservation.


NarrativeRecordEachteacherwasobservedonceduring2008‐2009,twiceduring2009‐2010andtwiceduring2010‐2011usingthenarrativerecord.Thenarrativerecordisadescriptiveobservationtoolthatdocumentstheactivitiesoccurringinaclassroomthroughouttheschoolday.TheversionusedfortheELLSprojectincludesinformationaboutthestructureandcontentofactivities,theOWLschedule,andtheamountoftimespentineachsegment.Observersalsoratethelevelofteacherinstructionandtheamountofstudentengagementduringeachsegment.Theschooldaycanbedividedintoninedistinctactivities,asdescribedbelow.Theschooldayorganizationforeachobservationisshowninaseriesofpiechartsbelow.InstructionalActivities

WholeGroup–Teacherisleadinginstructionofentireclass. SmallGroups–Teacher‐ledcollectiveinstructionoftwoormorechildren. Centers–Childrenareworkingindependentlyinorganizedcenters. Seatwork–Childrenareworkingindependently,usuallyseatedatatable,onan

assigned,structuredactivity(forexample,aworksheet). OWLTransitions–Transitionsthatincludeacademiccontent.

Non‐InstructionalActivities

Transitions–Timebetweenactivities,orwhenteacherstopsactivityforbehaviormanagement.

TV/MorningAnnouncements–TheclassiswatchingTVorlisteningtomorningannouncements.

Routines–Nap,snack,andlunch. OutofRoom–Childrenareoutoftheroomengagedinanactivity,suchasrecess.

WholeGroup18%

Centers12%

SmallGroup8%

Seatwork5%Transitions

22%

OWLTransitions2%

Routines25%

OutofRoom8%

SchoolDayOrganization:Fall2008‐2009


WholeGroup20%

Centers12%

SmallGroup6%

Seatwork3%

Transitions19%

OWLTransitions

2%

TV/Announce‐ments2%

Routines27%

OutofRoom9%


WholeGroup24%

Centers12%

SmallGroup7%Seatwork

4%Transitions

14%

OWLTransitions

8%

Routines23%

OutofRoom8%

SchoolDayOrganization:Spring2009‐2010

WholeGroup24%

Centers14%

SmallGroups4%

Seatwork1%

Transitions19%

OWLTransitions

6%

OutofRoom6%

Routines26%


WholeGroup23%

Centers12%

SmallGroups8%

Seatwork2%

Transitions18%

OWLTransitions

3%

OutofRoom8%

Routines26%

SchoolDayOrganizationSpring2010‐2011


Figure1belowshowstheaverageproportionoftheschooldayspentdeliveringtheOWLcurriculumcomponentsacrosstheteachers.Eachdifferentcoloredbarrepresentsoneofthefiveobservationsconductedoverthethreeprojectyears.InYear3,teachersspentlesstimeinCentersandmoretimeinSmallGroups,incontrasttothetwoearlieryears.TeachersalsoincreasedStoryTimeinYear3fromthepreviousyears.Thenon‐OWLtimewasreducedfromthepreviousyears,thoughtransitiontimedidincreaseinYear3.AttheendofYear2,oneareawhereincreaseswereencouragedwasinSmallGroups,andtheteachersappearedtobequiteresponsivetothatsuggestion.

Figure1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PercentofSchoolDay

PercentofSchoolDayineachOWLComponent

2008‐2009‐1

2009‐2010‐1

2009‐2010‐2

2010‐2011‐1

2010‐2011‐2


Figure2showstheaveragelevelofclassroominvolvementfortheSpring2010‐2011observationacrossthevariousclassroomactivities,andtheaveragelevelofteacherinstructionduringthoseactivities.Bothclassroominvolvementandteacherinstructionallevelareratedona5‐pointscale,withhigherscoresindicatingmoreinvolvementorinstruction.Theanchorsforthe5‐pointscalesareshownbelow.ClassroomInvolvement0=Low

Noinvolvementortotaldisorder. Routines,outofroom,and

transitionswithoutinstructionalcontentareautomaticallyscoredlow.

1=Mediumlow Childrenshowlackofinterestand

littleengagement,lookdistractedorbored.

2=Medium Averageinvolvement,childrenare

listeningorparticipating,interestcanwane,butcomesbacktotask

3=Mediumhigh Consistentengagementandinterest,

eagerexpressions.4=High

Intenseconcentration,consistentactiveengagementandinterestfromalloralmostallchildren.

TeacherInstructionalLevel0=Non‐AcademicInstruction

Non‐academicvideos,transitions,behaviorcorrection;noinstructionoccuring.

Meals,recess,nap,&transitionsw/oinstructionalcontentareautomaticallyscored0.

1=Low: Monitorsactivitieswithoutengagingchildren;no

specificlearning/academicskillbeingtaught;asksrhetoricalquestionswithoutwaitingfortheanswer.

2=Basic Instructionisfocusedonbasicacademiccontentor

skills.Readsw/oaskingquestionsoraskingquestionswithpre‐setanswers.

3=SomeInference Instructioninbasicskillswithsomeinference.Asks

someopen‐ended&someclose‐endedquestions.4=HighInference

Instructionw/sustainedlevelofreflection.Teacherhelpschildrenmakeconnectionsb/wconcepts;fourormoreopen‐endedquestions.

Figure2

2.102.36 2.23

1.55

2.61 2.73 2.602.36

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

WholeGroup Centers SmallGroups Seatwork

AverageClassroomInvolvementandTeacherInstructionalLevelbyActivityType:Spring

2010‐2011

TeacherInstructionalLevel ClassroomInvolvement


Ingeneral,childrenweremoderatelyengagedthroughouttheschoolday,andweremostengagedduringinstructionalsegmentssuchasWholeGroup,Centers,andSmallGroups.Theywereleastengagedduringseatwork,aswouldbeexpected.ThehighestclassroominvolvementwasnotedduringCenterstime,whenchildrenareallowedtochooseactivitiesmoreindependently.Teacherinstructionallevelsweremodestoverall.Summary/Conclusions:NarrativeRecordThefollowingstrengthswerenoted:

WholeGroupinstructionisasignificantcomponentoftheOWLcurriculumandteachersconsistentlyusedalargeportionoftheschooldayinthewholegroupformat.

ClassroomInvolvementwashighestduringCentersTimeandTeacherInstructionalLevelswerehighestduringCentersTime.

Thefollowingareaswerenotedasareasforimprovement:

InYear3,transitiontimeswereincreasedoverthelowachievedattheendofYear2.

AlthoughTeacherInstructionalLevelswereadequate,therearemanyopportunitiesforteacherstoincorporatehigherlevelsofinstructionintotheiractivities,byaskingmoreopen‐endedandinferentialquestions.Higherlevelsofinstructionwouldbeexpectedtoincreasestudentengagementandstudentlearning.


EarlyLanguageandLiteracyClassroomObservation

InadditiontotheELLCOPreKTOOLthatwasrequiredforERFevaluations,weelectedtocontinuetousetheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklist(LEC)portionfromthepreviousversionoftheELLCOaswell.BecausetheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklisthasbeenusedinERFprogramsinthepast,wedecidedtocontinuetousetheinstrumenttoretainsomecomparabilitywithotherprojects.Wepresentresultsforbothobservationsinthissection.Theaveragescoresoverthethreeprojectyearsfortheteachers(outof5totalpoints)ontheELLCOPreKToolGeneralClassroomEnvironmentScaleareshowninFigure3.Eachitemisscoredona5‐pointscale,rangingfromdeficient(1)toexemplary(5).Themiddleofthescaleisconsideredbasic(3).TheGeneralClassroomEnvironmentScaleiscomprisedoftwocomponents,ClassroomStructureandCurriculum.ClassroomStructurereferstothephysicalorganizationofclassroom,qualityanddisplayoflearningmaterialsintheroom,existenceandenforcementofmanagementstrategies,andappropriatenessofstaff/childratioandstaff/childinteractions.TheCurriculumcomponentfocusesonevidenceofacohesivecurriculum,opportunitiesforchildchoiceandinitiative,andrecognitionofandattentiontodiversity.

Figure3

InYear1,thescoresontheGeneralClassroomEnvironmentsubscaleanditstwocomponentscales,ClassroomStructureandCurriculum,fellgenerallyinthemiddlerangeofthescale,slightlyabovethebasiclevelofquality.InYear2,increaseswereobservedinbothClassroomStructureandCurriculum,withteachersaveragingbetweenstrongandexemplaryqualitybytheendofYear2.AttheendofYear3,anincreasewasseeninClassroomStructure.TeachersfellslightlyontheCurriculumscale.OverallteachersaveragedbetweenstrongandexemplaryqualityattheendofYear3.

3.6 3.5 3.6

4.2 4.1 4.24.4 4.4 4.4

4.2 4.1 4.24.5

4.04.3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

ClassroomStructure Curriculum GeneralClassroomEnvironmentSubscale

EarlyLanguage&LiteracyClassroomObservationGeneralClassroomEnvironmentSubscale

Year1

Year2‐Visit1

Year2‐Visit2

Year3‐Visit1

Year3‐Visit2


TheaveragescoresacrossthethreeobservationsfortheparticipatingteachersontheLanguage&LiteracysubscaleareshownbelowinFigure4.Asabove,allitemsarescoredona5‐pointscale,rangingfrom1=deficientto5=exemplary.TheLanguageandLiteracySubscalehasthreecomponents:LanguageEnvironment,BooksandBookReading,andPrintandEarlyWriting.TheLanguageEnvironmentcomponentisscoredforteacher/childconversations,opportunitiesforextendedindividualconversation,effortstobuildchildren’svocabulary,andattentiontoaspectsofphonologicalawareness.TheBooksandBookReadingcomponentisscoredontheorganizationofbookarea,thepresenceofbooksrepresentinganarrayofabilitylevelsandcontent,theuseofbookstopromotelearning,theexistenceofbookreadingactivities,andtheuseofbookreadingsasengagingandinstructionalactivities.ThePrintandEarlyWritingcomponentisscoredonthefollowingcomponents:Childrenareprovidedmaterialsandactivitiestodevelopwritingskills,teachersencouragechildwritinginmeaningfulways,andteachersfocusonenvironmentalprint.

Figure4

InYear1,thescoresontheLanguageandLiteracysubscale,anditscomponentparts,weresimilartothosefortheGeneralClassroomEnvironmentsubscaleandfellslightlyabovethebasiclevelofimplementation.InYear2,increaseswereobservedinallthreeareas,withthelargestgainsevidentintheLanguageEnvironmentarea.BytheendofYear2,teacherswereatthebasiclevelwithregardtoBooksandBookReadingandPrintandEarlyWriting,butexhibitedstrongqualitywithregardtotheLanguageEnvironment.InYear3,increaseswereobservedinallthreeareaswiththelargestgainsintheBooks&BookReadingarea.OverallteachersaveragedbetweenstrongandexemplaryqualityattheendofYear3.

3.6

3.1

2.6

3.1

4.1

3.6

2.9

3.5

4.3

3.5

3.2

3.7

4.0

4.5

4.1 4.24.1

4.4

4.04.2

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

LanguageEnvironment

Books&BookReading

Print&EarlyWriting

Language&LiteracySubscale

EarlyLanguage&LiteracyClassroomObservationLanguage&LiteracySubscale

Year1

Year2‐Visit1

Year2‐Visit2

Year3‐Visit1

Year3‐Visit2


ELLCO:LiteracyEnvironmentChecklistTheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklistcontainsfivecomponents: BookArea:bookareaisdistinct,orderly,andincludessoftmaterials. BookSelection:Booksrepresentarangeofdifficultylevels. BookUse:Booksarepresentinthescience,dramaticplay,blocks,andbookcenters,

andbookrecordingsareused. WritingMaterials:Alphabetisvisible,wordcardsusedtosupportnamewriting,

writingtemplatesandtoolsareavailable(includingvarietyofpaperandwritingutensils),adistinctwritingareaexistsandisavailableduringcentertime.

WritingAroundtheRoom:Evidenceofteacherdictation,bigbookuse,full‐groupliteracyactivities,writingdisplays,writingtoolsindramaticplay(asbothtoolsandprops),alphabetpuzzlesandwordpuzzlesarepresent.

TheresultsfortheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklistareshowninFigure5.Becausethesubscalesareeachscaleddifferently,theresultsarepresentedinpercentageform.Thefigureshowsthepercentofpossiblepointsachievedoneachsubscale,averagedacrosstheteachers.Overall,teachersexhibitedgainsfromYear1toYear2ineverycomponentoftheLiteracyEnvironment.TheyachievedhighscoresontheBookArea,BookSelection,andWritingMaterialssubscales,buthaveroomforimprovementintheotherareas,especiallyintermsofBookUseandWritingAroundtheRoom.

Figure5

80

91

49

73

35

97

73

97

62

80

94

70

9298

69

93

60

97 99

82

96

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BookArea BookSelection BookUse WritingMaterials WritingAroundtheRoom

PercentofTotalPossiblePoints

LiteracyEnvironmentChecklistPercentofTotalPossiblePoints

Year1 Year2‐Visit1 Year2‐Visit2 Year3‐Visit1 Year3‐Visit2


Summary/Conclusions:EarlyLanguageandLiteracyClassroomObservationThefollowingstrengthswerenoted:

TeacherscoresremainedstableongeneralclassroomenvironmentitemsoftheELLCO,improvedonlanguageandliteracyitemsoftheELLCOandremainedstableontheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklist.

TeachersmadethelargestgainsintheareasofBooks&BooksReadingandPrint&EarlyWriting.

Teachers’classroomsweregenerallyhighestintermsmaterials;i.e.,teachershavecreatedclassroomsthathavethenecessaryhighqualityrawmaterials.

Overallcomponents,noteacherhadapoorclassroomenvironmentonanyscale.Thefollowingareaswerenotedasareasforimprovement:

TeacherscontinuehavethemostroomforimprovementontheBookUseandWritingAroundtheRoomsubscalesoftheLiteracyEnvironmentChecklist.

Classroomsarewellstructuredandhavealltherightrawmaterials,butteacherscancontinuetofindwaystoapplythoserawmaterialstohelpingchildrenlearn.


EvaluationofChildOutcomesWenowturntoanexaminationofthechildachievementoutcomesfortheELLSproject.Table2belowshowsthenumberofparticipatingchildrenineachofthethreeprojectyears.InYear3,therewere278childrenwhoenrolledinoneofourthirteenpreschoolclassroomsatsomepointduringtheschoolyear.Ofthesestudents,21wereenrolledafterJanuary1,2011andreceivedposttestsbutnotpretests.Twenty(20)studentswerepretestedintheFallbutwithdrewatsomepointduringtheschoolyearandwerenotposttested.Elevenchildrenenrolledandwithdrewbeforeanyassessmentscouldbecollected.Thus,thereare226childrenwhowereenrolledformorethansixmonthsintheparticipatingpreschoolclassroomsandwhohadatleastoneassessmentcollectedateachtimepoint.Threechildrenwereslightlyover‐age(bornafterOctober1),butareincludedinthesampleherebecausetheirbirthdayswerewithindaysofthecutoff.Weexcludedthestudentswhohadonlyapretestoraposttest.Afewstudentsrefusedpartsofanassessment.Allfiguresreportedbelowarebasedon220‐226studentswhowerepresentinpreschoolforatleast6monthsandcompletedatleastoneassessment.

Table2.Numberofschools,classroomsandchildrenintheELLSProject

2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Numberofpreschoolclassrooms 10 13 13

Numberofschools 5 7 7

Numberofchildrenassessedatpretest 187 249 246

Numberofchildrenassessedatposttest 181 229 247

Numberofchildrenwithbothassessments 179 219 226

InstrumentationSeveralstandardizedtestswereusedtoassessthelanguageandliteracyskillsofthechildren.ReceptivevocabularywasassessedusingthePeabodyPictureVocabularyTestIV.Inaddition,foursubtestsoftheWoodcock‐JohnsonAchievementBatterywereused:(1)Letter‐Word,whichassessesletterandwordrecognition;(2)PictureVocabulary,ameasureofexpressivevocabulary;(3)OralComprehension,whichmeasureschildren’sabilitytounderstandorallanguage;and(4)Spelling,ameasureofearlywriting,inwhichchildrencopysimpleshapesandletters,andwriteselectedlettersandwords.ThePhonologicalAwarenessLiteracyScreening(PALS)instrumentwasalsogiventoassessupperandlowercaseletterrecognition,beginningsoundawareness,rhymeawareness,andconceptsofprint.Finally,theWriteStart!Assessmentwasalsogiven;itisameasureofearlywritingdevelopedbyDeborahRoweandCarinNeitzel,twooftheinvestigatorsontheELLSproject.FortheSpanishspeakingchildren,wecollectedtheExpressiveOneWordPictureVocabularyTestinSpanish.Thiswasintendedtoexaminewhetherchildren’sSpanishproficiencydecreasedastheylearnedEnglish.


Inthefirstprojectyear,thepretestassessmentsonthechildrenwerecollectedassoonaspossibleafteragreementsweremadewiththelocalschooldistrict,beginninginNovember,2008.Allpretestswerecompletedbymid‐December,2008.Posttestsweregiveninthespring,betweenMarch30,2009andMay5,2009.Inthesecondprojectyear,wewereabletobeginpretestassessmentsearlierintheFall.Allbut10childrenweretestedbetweenSeptember2andOctober28,2009.Theadditional10childrenwerelateenrolleesandweretestedassoonastheyenteredpreschool.TheSpringposttestsfortheYear2childrenwerecollectedbetweenMarch23andMay15,2010.ForYear3,FallassessmentswereconductedbetweenSeptember20,2010andNovember10,2010.SpringassessmentswereconductedbetweenMarch21,2011andMay17,2011.DemographicinformationforallchildrenissummarizedinTable3.InYear3,thesamplewasaboutfouryears,5monthsofageatthepretest,andwasnearlycomprisedofslightlymorefemalesthanmales.ThelargestethnicgroupwasAfricanAmerican,comprisingabout45%ofthesample.About33%ofthestudentswereHispanic.Asmallgroupofchildrenwerefromrecentimmigrantfamilies,frompartsoftheMiddleEastandAfrica.About45%ofthestudentswereEnglish‐languagelearners.

Table3.Demographics

Variable 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

n % n % n %

Male 85 47% 127 51% 104 46%

Female 96 53% 122 49% 122 54%

ELL 43 24% 111 45% 100 44%

NotELL 138 76% 138 55% 126 56%

Black/AfricanAmerican 119 66% 119 48% 108 48%

Hispanic/Latino 27 15% 87 35% 75 33%

Caucasian 13 7% 17 7% 16 7%

Arabic 10 6% 19 8% 22 10%

African 9 5% 3 1% 3 1%

Asian/AsianAmerican 3 2% 1 .004% 2 1%

Other ‐ ‐ 3 1% ‐ ‐

Ageatpretest 4.7years 56m 4.4years 53m 4.5years 54m

Ageatposttest 5.3years 63m 5.0years 60m 5.1years 61m


ResultsontheStandardizedTestsChildren’saveragescoresonallassessmentsareshowninTable4.ThePPVT,theSpanishPictureVocabulary,andtheWoodcockJohnsonsubtestsareshownasstandardscores,withanormedaverageof100andstandarddeviationof15.Theothertestsareshownasthenumberofitemscorrect:26itemsfortheUpperCaseletterknowledge,and10itemseachforBeginningSounds,PrintConcepts,andRhymeAwareness.Year1studentsmadesignificantgainsoverthepreschoolyearonallassessments.FallPreKtoFallKgainsweresignificantonallassessmentsexceptSpelling.SpringPreKtoFallKsummerlearninglosswasnon‐significantonallmeasurescollectedinKindergarten.Themagnitudeoflossoverthesummerforthefirstyearchildren,ifany,wasminimal.Overall,studentsbeganYear2atlowerachievementlevelsthanthestudentsinYear1.ThereweremoreELLstudentsintheprojectinYear2,andtheirEnglishproficiencywasquitelowattheFallpretest.ThisresultedintheloweraverageoverallforYear2.GainsweresignificantfromthebeginningtotheendofpreschoolforYear2childrenonallmeasurescollectedinEnglish.FallPreKtoFallKgainswerealsosignificant.Summerlosswasnegligible,iftherewasanyatall,fortheYear2students.

Table4.MeanScoresonAllChildAssessments

Year1 Year2 Year3

MeasureFallPreK

SpringPreK FallK

FallPreK

SpringPreK FallK

FallPreK

SpringPreK

PPVT 81.2 86.3* 87.7† 73.1 85.3* 88.6† 75.6 85.1*LetterWord 97.0 101.2* 99.3† 91.0 102.3* 101.0† 93.4 102.2*Spelling 92.1 94.2* 91.5† 83.6 90.6* 93.1† 85.4 90.7*PictureVocab. 91.2 94.0* 94.1† 81.7 90.6* 90.7† 80.6 87.6*OralComp. 89.4 91.2* 92.9† 85.2 88.3* 89.9† 84.8 87.7*UpperCase 11.0 18.0* ‐ 7.0 19.7* ‐ 9.2 19.6*BeginningSounds 5.7 7.5* ‐ 3.4 7.5* ‐ 5.5 7.0*PrintConcepts 4.9 6.1* ‐ 3.7 6.2* ‐ 4.6 6.0*RhymeAwareness 4.4 5.7* ‐ 4.8 6.8* ‐ 4.9 5.7*SpanishVocab. ‐ ‐ ‐ 75.4 75.0x ‐ 73.9 73.8**p<.05;gainsarestatisticallysignificant.†p<.05;FallPreKtoFallKgainsstatisticallysigni icant. Year3studentshadsimilarpretestscoresasthegroupofstudentsenteringpreKinYear2.TheYear3studentsmadesignificantgainsonallassessmentsconductedinEnglishfromthebeginningtotheendofpreschool.TheFall‐SpringchangeontheSpanishPictureVocabularytestwasnotstatisticallysignificantfortheYear2orYear3students.Thisfindingwasnotunexpected.TheSpanishtestisusedintheevaluationtoidentifywhetherELLstudentslosetheirSpanishproficiencyastheybegintolearnEnglish.ThoughaveragestandardscoresontheSpanishPictureVocabularytestarelow(SpringYear1andYear2averages=75and74,respectively),thechildren’sscoresdidnotdeclineovertheirpreschoolyear,agoodresult


giventhattheyarenotgivenanyinstructioninSpanishinpreschoolandarefocusedonacquiringEnglish. TherelationshipofethnicityandELLstatustochildren’slanguageandliteracygainswascomplex.Overall,onallassessments,minoritychildrenandEnglish‐languagelearningchildrenachievedlowerscoresthantheirCaucasianorEnglish‐speakingpeers.However,ifweexaminechildren’sgainsbyethnicity,weseethattheminoritystudentsmadesubstantialgainsoverthepreschoolyear.Figure5belowshowsthatwhiletheHispanicandotherminoritystudents(primarilynewimmigrantgroupsfromtheMiddleEastandAfrica)begantheyearperformingconsiderablylowerthantheAfricanAmericanandCaucasianstudentsonthePPVT,theymadelargegainsinreceptivevocabularyovertheschoolyear.Theslopeofthelinefortheotherminoritystudentsindicatesthatthisgroupmadethelargestgainsovertheschoolyear.TheAfricanAmericanandCaucasianstudentsalsomadegainsonthePPVTovertheyear.However,theaverageforallgroupsisbelowthenationalaverageof100.Figure6showsthegainsbyethnicgroupontheWoodcock‐JohnsonLetter‐Wordtest.Onthistest,theHispanicandotherminoritygroupsmadelargegainsoverthepreschoolyear,thoughtheyfinishedpreschoolstillscoringbelowtheirCaucasianandAfricanAmericanclassmates.

Figure6

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

Pretest Posttest

PPVTStandardScore

PPVTGainsbyEthnicity

AfricanAmerican(n=107)

Hispanic(n=74)

OtherMinority(n=26)

Caucasian(n=15)


Figure6

Inaddition,thegainsachievedbyEnglish‐languagelearnersweregenerallygreaterthanthegainsachievedbythenativeEnglish‐speakingstudents,thoughalmostallstudentsgainedovertheyear.ThisisillustratedgraphicallyinFigure7forthePPVTandFigure8fortheWoodcock‐JohnsonLetter‐Wordtest.GainsachievedbytheELLstudentsonthePPVTandLetter‐Wordtestweresubstantial(morethan10standardscorepoints),yettheystillfinishedpreschoolbehindtheirnativespeakingpeers.

Figure7

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

Pretest Posttest

Letter‐WordStandardScore

Letter‐WordGainsbyEthnicity

AfricanAmerican(n=102)

Hispanic(n=74)

OtherMinority(n=27)

Caucasian(n=15)

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

Pretest Posttest

PPVTStandardScore

PPVTGainsbyELLStatus

Non‐ELL(n=124)

ELL(n=98)


Figure8

EnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccessBenchmarksTheprojectteamandtheevaluatorsetbenchmarkgoalsforeachassessmentforeachprojectyear.TheseareshowninTable5.Eachtesthasatargetscore,whichisshowninthesecondcolumn.Theprojectgoalsareshownastargetpercentagesofchildren.Thatis,foreachassessment,theprojectgoalindicatesthepercentageofchildrenexpectedtomeetthetargetscore.ThetargetscoresaresetrelativelylowforthissampleandthepercentagesaresetlowerfortheELLstudents.Thus,achievingabenchmarkgoaldoesnotnecessarilyindicatethatchildrenareperformingatlevelsachievedbyU.S.childrenonaverage.ThetargetscoresforthePPVTandthePALSuppercaselettersaresetbytheDepartmentofEducationandaresimilarlysetwellbelowthenationalaverage.

Table5.BenchmarksforEnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccess

TargetScore Y1Goal

Y2Goal

Y3Goal

Y1ELLGoal

Y2ELLGoal

Y3ELLGoal

PPVT 85 80% 90% 95% 60% 75% 85%

WJPictureVocabulary 85 80% 90% 95% 60% 75% 85%

WJLetter‐Word 85 85% 90% 95% 75% 85% 90%

PALSUpperCaseLetters 19of26 85% 90% 95% 75% 85% 90%

WJOralComprehension 85 75% 85% 90% 60% 75% 85%

PALSBeginningSounds 1.5of10 80% 90% 95% 75% 85% 90%

PALSRhymeAwareness 2.2of10 80% 90% 95% 75% 85% 90%

PALSPrintAwareness 2.6of10 80% 90% 95% 75% 85% 90%

WJSpelling 85 75% 85% 90% 60% 75% 85%

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

Pretest Posttest

Letter‐WordStandardScore

Letter‐WordGainsbyELLStatus

Non‐ELL(n=119)

ELL(n=99)


Figures9and10showthepercentagesofchildrenmeetingtheYear3projectbenchmarksintheSpringoftheirPreKyear.Figure9showsalltheparticipatingstudentsandFigure10showstheELLstudents.Thebarsineachfigureindicatethepercentageofchildrenwhometthetargetscoreforeachtest.Theblackbarbellsshowthetargetpercentagessetbytheevaluatorandprojectteamatthebeginningoftheproject.Ifthelowerbarinthefiguremeetsthebarbell,thenthebenchmarktargetforthatassessmentwasmet.Ifthelowerbarfallsbelowthebarbell,thebenchmarktargetwasnotmetfortheyear.Inspiteofthesubstantialandsignificantgainsmadebythepreschoolchildren,benchmarktargetsweremetforonlyonetest:theWoodcockJohnsonLetter‐Wordtest.TheELLstudentsmettwobenchmarks:Letter‐WordandPrintAwareness.StudentsoverallhavethemostroomforimprovementonthePPVTandontheWoodcockJohnsonPictureVocabularyandOralComprehensiontests.ELLstudentsalsostruggledwiththePPVTandtheWoodcockJohnsonPictureVocabularyandOralComprehensiontests.

Figure9

5162 56

95

7067

92

6580

0102030405060708090100

PercentM

eetingBenchmark

PercentofChildrenMeetingProjectBenchmarks:2010‐2011SchoolYear

PercentatorAboveBenchmark PercentBelowBenchmark


Figure10

WriteStart!ResultsTheWriteStart!assessmentwasdesignedtoassesschildren’semergingwritingskills.Children’sdrawingandwritingsamplesarescoredforprintform,letter‐soundcorrespondence,andwhetherchildrencandemonstratethepurposesofprintandwriting.Thechildrenareaskedtodrawapictureofthemselves,writetheirnames,andwriteacaptionthatdescribeswhattheyaredoinginaphotograph.Children’sself‐drawingswerescoredusingalistof20bodyparts.TheaveragenumberofbodypartsdrawnforboysandgirlsatthebeginningandendofPreKisshowninFigure15.BothboysandgirlswereabletocreatemorecomplexdrawingsattheendofPreK.Thesegainswerestatisticallysignificantforbothboysandgirls.Girlsgenerallyperformedslightlybetteronthistaskthanboys.

17 20 14

92

6255

87

5574

0102030405060708090100

PercentMeetingBenchmark

PercentofELLChildrenMeetingProjectBenchmarks:2010‐2011SchoolYear

PercentatorAboveBenchmark PercentBelowBenchmark


Figure11

ChildrenwerealsoaskedtowritetheirnamesaspartoftheWriteStart!task.Thewrittenproductswerescoredforavarietyofcomponents.Below,wepresenttheresultsfornamewritingcompleteness,whichwasscoredintermsofthenumberoffirstnamelettersthatthechildrenwereabletoproduce.Figures12aand12bshowtheproportionsofchildrenateachlevelofnamewritingcompletenessforthefallandspringassessments.Inthefallofpreschool,about23%ofthechildrenwereabletoproduceallofthelettersintheirfirstname.But,27%ofthechildrenwereunabletoproduceanylettersatall.Bytheendofpreschool,only2.5%ofthechildrenproducednoletters,and72%ofthechildrencouldproducealloftheirnameletters,asubstantialimprovement.

78910

02468101214161820

Boys Girls

NumberofBodyPartsDrawn

FallandSpringSelf‐DrawingResults

Fall Spring


Figure12a

Figure12b

NoLettersPresent28%

HalforFewerLettersPresent

38%

MorethanHalfLettersPresent

12%

AllLettersPresent23%

NameWritingCompletenessPretest

NoLettersPresent3% HalforFewer

LettersPresent10%

MorethanHalfLettersPresent15%

AllLettersPresent72%

NameWritingCompletenessPosttest


Inadditiontothenamewritingtask,thechildrenalsowrotecaptionsdescribingwhattheyweredoinginaphotographthatwastakenduringtheschoolday.Thesecaptionswerescoredonavarietyofelements.Onescoringareafocusedonprintform(i.e.,thevisualcharacteristicsoftheirmarks).Figure13illustratesthechangesoverthepreschoolyearforprintform.Somechildrenwereunabletomakeanylettersorletter‐likeformsandgenerallyscribbledormadedrawings.TherewerefewersuchchildrenintheSpring.OtherswereabletocreateinventedlettersintheFall,buttherewerealsofewerofthesechildrenintheSpring.Themostadvancedchildrenproducedatleastsomeconventionallettersand,inafewcases,letter‐soundcorrespondence.Thefirsttwogroupsofbarshavefewerchildrenattheposttestthanatthepretest,whilethelasttwosetsofbarshavemoreorthesamenumberofchildrenattheposttestthanatthepretest.Thisindicatesthatchildren’swrittenmessageswereincreasinginsophisticationoverthepreschoolyear.Theincreasefrom10%ofchildrenabletocreatesomeletter‐soundcorrespondenceto37%ofchildrenwithletter‐soundcorrespondenceattheposttestisnoteworthy.

Figure13

14

30

46

107 10

4637

0102030405060708090100

Drawings&Scribbles

Inventedlettersandletter‐like

forms

Atleastsomeconventional

letters

Letter‐Soundcorrespondence

PercentofChildren

PhotoLabelingLetterForm

Pretest Posttest


ConclusionsOverall,thethirdyearoftheEnhancedLanguageandLiteracySuccessprojectmettheexpectationsoftheprojectteam,especiallywithregardtoincreasedperformancebytheteachers.Allteacherswereimplementingmostaspectsofthecurriculum,andclassroomenvironmentsweregenerallyexemplary.Overthethreeprojectyears,theteachershavemadesubstantialchangesintheirclassroomsandtheirteachingpractices.Implementationfidelityimprovedfromthefirstprojectyearinallareasofthecurriculum.Theteachershavebeenremarkablyresponsivetothedata‐drivenfeedbackgeneratedbytheevaluation,andtheymadeimprovementsinYear3intheamountoftimespentinStoryTimeandSmallGroups.Areasforfutureimprovementeffortscouldinvolvereducingtransitiontimesintheclassroomsandencouragingteacherstohavemorecomplexinstructionalinteractionswiththestudents.Thestudentparticipantsmadelargeandstatisticallysignificantgainsoverthepreschoolyearonallassessments,thoughprojectbenchmarkswereonlyachievedontheLetter‐Wordtest.ChildrengenerallyperformedbetterontheassessmentsofbasicliteracyskillssuchastheLetter‐WordandSpellingtestsoftheWoodcockJohnsonthantheydidonthemoreadvancedlanguagemeasureslikethevocabularyandoralcomprehensiontests.ThechildrenreceivedthelowestscoresoverallonthePPVT,andtheWoodcockJohnsonPictureVocabularyandOralComprehensiontests.ChildrenalsohaddifficultywiththetwophonologicalawarenesstasksonthePALSassessment,theRhymeAwarenessandBeginningSoundstasks.Manystudentswerenotabletoprogresspastthepracticeitemsonthesetasksandthuscouldnotbescored.Nevertheless,thestudentsmadesubstantialprogressovertheirpreschoolyearinallaspectsoflanguageandliteracy.TheELLstudentsachievedlargegainsoverthepreschoolyearonallassessments.