Using Technology to Deliver Professional Development That Fosters Early Literacy Development

1. Using Technology to Deliver Professional Development That Fosters Early Literacy Development David K. Dickinson Boston College (Vanderbilt U. next fall) Nancy Clark-Chiarelli Center for Children & Families EDC

2. Session Overview • Theoretical framing • Importance of early literacy • Evidence of classroom effects • Need for in-service P.D. • LEEP approach and results from face-to-face Institute delivery • Technology-enhanced LEEP • Design • Demonstration • Research results • Into the future

3. The Importance of the Preschool Years to Long-term Literacy Success

4. The Achievement Gap in Reading Scores of 9 Year Old Children

5. A Strong Early Start is Vital • Great stability in: • reading level from K – Grade 11 • phonemic awareness during the elementary school years • Relative vocabulary levels are stable • Schools do not contribute to vocabulary growth beyond what is accounted for by age • Remediation is increasingly difficult as children get older • Age 3 - 6 ..a window of opportunity?

6. Children from Low-income Homes Start School Seriously Behind in Receptive Language • Four-year-old Head Start children, on average, score at levels equivalent to children age 2:10 • Many children (Even Start, ELL) begin school even farther behind

7. Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker (1998)

8. Preschool Classrooms Can Make a Difference

9. Home & School Study of Language & Literacy Development For children from low-income homes: • What interactions in homes and classrooms support language development? • What effects do such experiences during the preschool years have on long-term literacy? Method: • Visited homes & classrooms from age 3 • Audiotaped teachers and children throughout the day • Assessed language & literacy beginning in kindergarten through grade 7 Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, Beginning Literacy with Language, Brookes Publishing.

10. Correlations Between Kindergarten and Grade Seven Readingfrom Dickinson & Tabors, Beginning Literacy with Language, Brookes Publishing

11. KindergartenLiteracy SkillsRelated to Preschool Classroom Experiences

12. Predicting Grade 4 Reading Comprehension from Preschool Interaction Data (n = 55) • California Achievement Test: R2 = .33** • Sig. controls: none • Free play: • % teacher rare vocabulary** • Large group • % teacher attention utterances**

13. Professional Development Can Improve Classrooms and Enhance Children’s Learning

14. The Need for In-Service PD • Programs want staff to get more university-level training: • Head Start, states and NAEYC are raising educational requirements • Uneven understanding of early literacy: • College-level work on emergent literacy is new • Long-standing beliefs and folk theories about literacy lead to resistance or inappropriate practices • Access to high quality early childhood education is limited

15. Background • Many teachers have trouble getting access to high quality classes on language and literacy. • Emerging technologies have the potential to increase access to advanced training. • But early childhood teachers: • have limited experience with or training in use of technology • tend to prefer socially-grounded learning • may have limited confidence using technology

16. Literacy Environment Enrichment Project (LEEP, now STARS in Connecticut) • 3-4 credit course delivered to Head Start teams throughout New England • Teams of teachers and supervisors attend together • Course material includes reading and classes that linked theory to practice • Assignments require use of new strategies and systematic reflection • Supervisors learn content and gain supervisory skills

17. LEEP Institute Design • Course delivered in concentrated Institute framework (3, 2-day sessions) • Assignments prior to the initial session and between sessions • Supervisors support teachers: • apply course content in their rooms • complete assignments • Supervisors help to sustain change: • have shared vision of effective practice • provide long-term accountability • capacity to affect broader systems

18. Content: Early Literacy Development • Early literacy: constructive & multi-dimensional • Early writing • The nature of development • Appropriate forms of classroom support • Phonological awareness • What it is & activities to foster it • Oral language • Importance to literacy • Importance of conversations • Books and book reading • Importance of books and book reading • Guidance for reading, library area • Curriculum planning • Planning & integrating literacy

19. Toward Reflective, Effective Practice New Practices Guided Observation Knowledge & Beliefs Classroom Practices Conversations & Guided Reflection Course Content Reflective Effective Practices New Knowledge & Beliefs

20. Research Design for LEEP • Wait-list control groups • LEEP n=58 • Comparison group n=74 • Education levels: : • High school or GED: 6% • Child Development Associate degree: 22% • Associates degree: 31% • BA or MA 41% • Classroom observations • Prior to LEEP and after all assignments completed • ELLCO: Classroom Observation, Literacy Observation Checklist, Literacy Activities • Assessment Profile

21. Analytic Approach • Regression models controlling for key variables then determining the added contribution of LEEP vs. no LEEP • Control variables tested: • Fall score • Teacher education • Years of experience • Cohort

22. ELLCO Subscales

23. Amount of Added Variance Accounted for by Participation in LEEP • Controls: • Fall score on the same variable • Cohort, teacher education & experience • Classroom Observation: • Gen. Envir.: 4% (r2 = .36)** • Lang., Lit. & Curr.: 24% (r2 = .46)** • Literacy Activities Rating Scale • Full Group Books: 15% (r2 = .48)* • Writing: 19% (r2 = .60)* • Lit. Env. Checklist: 19% (r2 = .57)**

24. Moving From LEEP to T-LEEP • Teachers and supervisors benefit from a a rigorous in-service course focused on literacy • Changes in practice can be sustained up to 3 years later • Many teachers are in settings where high quality instruction is hard to access • Distance-learning technology is becoming affordable

25. T-LEEP Instructional Sites • Originating Site: University of Massachusetts Lowell • Distant Sites: Hartford, Connecticut Bridgewater, Massachusetts Newton, Massachusetts Chapel Hill, North Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina

26. T-LEEP Components • Class sessions: • Face-to-face professional conversations: 1hour • ITV session: 2 hours • Team planning: 1/2 hour • Assignments: • reading • practice-based applications • technology-based assignments

27. Instructional Videoconference • Personnel • Instructor in originating site • Facilitators in distant sites • Technical support in all sites • ITV Guiding Elements • Didactic: teach key concepts and strategies • Practice-based: videotapes, experience • Analytical: examine videotapes and practice through lens provided by theory • Build community across sites

28. Sample SessionSession 3: Phonological Awareness • Professional Conversation (45 min.) What can we learn from the Transcript Analysis about supporting conversations in the classsroom? • ITV Session-Part I (55 min.) • Is it Phonological Awareness or Phonics? • Video: Patrick, What is he doing? • Stump the Professor-Syllables

29. Session 3: Phonological Awareness • ITV Session-Part II (55 min.) • Video: Down By the Bay, Did you ever see Chidimma…? • Atlas: Levels of Support • Video: Ants-go-marching, The little one does what? • Wrap-Up (45 min.) • Going Up or Down the Staircase • Homework: P.A. log • Session 4: Professional Conversation about PA log and reflections

30. Analysis of T-LEEP Sessions • Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) conducted discourse analysis of sessions (see Am. Ed. Research Journal, Dec. ’04). • Qualities of instructor-student discourse that contribute to effective learning examined. • Analysis of Adult Classroom Environment Scale (ACES) • T-LEEP participants rated classroom learning environment equally or more positive on four dimensions: Affiliation, Teacher Support, Personal Goal Attainment, and Organization & Clarity.

31. T-LEEP Research Design for Classroom and Child Outcomes • Quasi-experimental Design with pre- and post-tests • T-LEEP teachers n=25 • Comparison group teachers n=34 • T-LEEP children n=195 • Comparison group children n=217 • Measures • Teacher Technology Survey • ELLCO • PPVT-III (Receptive Vocabulary) • EPAP (Phonological Awareness) • ELP (Emergent Literacy) • TROLL (Teacher Rating of Oral Language & Literacy) • Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS- FACES version)

32. Analytic Approach • Ordinary-least-squares regression analyses were conducted on teacher spring outcomes, controlling for fall scores. • Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the hypothesis that children in T-LEEP classrooms demonstrate stronger language and literacy skills.

33. Classroom Outcomes • Participation in T-LEEP predicts higher post-intervention scores on every measure of the ELLCO • T-LEEP participation explains 72% of variation in spring scores on the Writing Subscale • A moderate amount of variation on other subscales (11% to 53%) • Effect sizes were large: from .58 to 1.34

34. Classroom Outcome Data *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 ****p<.0001 R2 = the proportion of variance in spring scores accounted for by participation in T-LEEP

35. Child Outcomes • Teacher participation in T-LEEP has a positive impact on children’s language and literacy. • Participation in T-LEEP predicted nearly one-half (42%) of the between-class variation in children’s receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III).

36. Child Outcomes • T-LEEP participation is associated with higher scores in phonological awareness (EPAP) and emergent literacy (ELP). • Teacher participation in T-LEEP explains 16% of between-class variation in spring EPAP and 15% in spring ELP.

37. Hierarchical Linear Models: Participation in T-LEEP Predicting Spring Language and Literacy Skills

38. Teacher Ratings of Children’s Language and Literacy (TROLL) • Amount of between-class variance associated with T-LEEP participation: • Writing skills: 33% • Reading skills: 22% • Language development: 15%

39. Teacher Ratings of Children’s Social Skills • Amount of between-class variance associated with T-LEEP participation: • Problem behaviors: 22% • Social skills: 17%

40. Future Directions • Replication study of LEEP and T-LEEP in a broader context throughout W. Virginia with I.E.S. funding. • On-line version of LEEP pilot tested and available. • Continued partnerships with higher education. • Examine effectiveness when PD is combined with a strong curriculum (Opening the World of Learning, Schickedanz & Dickinson).

41. Sources • Zaslow, M. & Martinez-Beck (Ed.) (in press). Critical issues in early childhood professional development. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. • June conference on PD in Honolulu sponsored by PREL (PREL.Org) • For LEEP-related courses: Center for Children & Families: EDC • For science-rich preschool curriculum (OWL) linked to PD: David Dickinson, Vanderbilt University