1 / 73

Division of Early Childhood October 30, 2012

http://www.crtiec.org. Using Programmatic Research to Develop Feasible, Effective Language and Early Literacy Interventions . Charlie Greenwood, Elizabeth Spencer, Howard Goldstein, & Judy Carta Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. Division of Early Childhood

koen
Download Presentation

Division of Early Childhood October 30, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. http://www.crtiec.org Using Programmatic Research to Develop Feasible, Effective Language and Early Literacy Interventions Charlie Greenwood, Elizabeth Spencer, Howard Goldstein, & Judy CartaCenter for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood Division of Early Childhood October 30, 2012

  2. CRTIEC • IES Research and Development Center funded in 2008 • Objectives • Conduct a focused program of research to develop and evaluate intensive interventions for preschool language and early literacy skills that supplement core instruction • Develop and validate an assessment system aligned with these interventionsfor universal screening and progress monitoring • Carry out supplementary research responsive to the needs of early childhood education and special education practitioners and policy makers. • Provide outreach and leadership • Annual Preschool RTI Summit • Website and Resources (http://www.critec.org)

  3. D y n a m i c M e a s u r e m e n t G r o u p S u p p o r t i n g S c h o o l S u c c e s s O n e S t e p a t a T i m e The Forest Friends

  4. Acknowledgments • In addition to the authors, this work has been coordinated by: Gabriela Guerrero, along with Jane Atwater, Tracy Bradfield, Annie Hommel, Naomi Schneider, Sean Noe, Alisha Wackerle-Hollman, and a host of dedicated research assistants, students, and postdocs at University of Kansas, University of Minnesota, the Ohio State University, and the Dynamic Measurement Group. • We want to acknowledge the partnership of the many early education programs that collaborated with us on this important study.

  5. Big Idea! • Studies Should Build on Each Other! • Research is a process where one conducts several studies programmatically to nail down an effect and reveal the extensions and limitations of an intervention (Robinson, 2004)

  6. Today’s Topic: Programmatic Intervention Development Research • Overview (Greenwood) • Tier 2 Intervention Design Planning Phase: Goldstein/Spencer • Iterative Testing and Development Phase: Goldstein/Spencer • Efficacy and Effectiveness Phase: Greenwood/Goldstein • Implications/Discussion (Carta)

  7. Challenges Young Children Face? • Many children enter kindergarten with limited oral language skills that place them at risk for later reading difficulties (Dickinson & Snow, 1997) • These children become struggling readers because they lack the necessary language and early literacy experiences needed to learn these skills prior to kindergarten.

  8. What Should We Teach in Preschool? • Adequate early literacy experience before kindergarten enables children to acquire knowledge of two related domains of information needed to learn to read. • First, children need sources of information that will directly support their understanding of the meaning of print in school. • These are: vocabulary knowledge, oral language skills, language comprehension, and conceptual knowledge leading to reading comprehension (Biemiller, 2006). • Second, children need familiarity with the alphabet, the ability to translate print into sounds and sounds into print (Treiman, Tincoff, & Richmond-Welty, 1997), and print awareness (Badian, 2000)

  9. Challenges Preschools Face? • The field continues struggling to improve instructional quality and outcomes for all children (Justice, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008; Greenwood, Carta, Atwater et al., 2012) • The field is just beginning to consider intentional instruction and differentiating instruction for individual children (NAEYC, DEC, & NHSA, 2012) • There is a lack of evidence-based Tier 2 and 3 interventions and aligned measurement tools for screening and progress monitoring (Greenwood, Bradfield et al., 2011)

  10. Is There a Solution?: RTI and Multi-Tiered Support Systems • Universally screen frequently to identify children not making expected progress • Provide these children more intensive supplementary (Tier 2) or alternative (Tier 3) experiences • Monitor progress and adapt instructional support as needed • Improve the quality of Tier 1, core instruction in the language and early literacy

  11. How is CRTIEC Approaching It? • Developing evidence-based practice through programmatic research? • Interventions developed teach skills with evidence that they are precursors of later learning to read • Interventions are delivered through practices containing effective components • Efficacy of the intervention is confirmed by testing in rigorously designed studies • Measures are developed with evidence of sensitivity, validity, accuracy, and reliability

  12. IES Programmatic Research

  13. Tier 2 Intervention: Design and Planning Phase

  14. Tier 2 Embedded Storybook Interventions • As part of an RTI model, there is a need for high-quality interventions to improve early language and literacy skills for preschool children who are falling behind. • Overview of design and development work on interventions feasible for high fidelity implementation in preschool classrooms. • How findings from early efficacy studies have informed our development.

  15. To effectively implement response to intervention in early childhood…

  16. …how should we design Tier 2 interventions?

  17. We need interventions that work in classrooms…

  18. …and that don’t place additional demands on teachers.

  19. Children learn best when we teach explicitly…

  20. … and when we give children opportunities to respond.

  21. So we designed an intervention.

  22. Story Friends Program

  23. Small groups of children participate in ‘listening centers.’

  24. Prerecorded storybooks and explicit embedded lessons are delivered under headphones.

  25. Multiple listens provide repeated exposures to instruction and many opportunities to respond.

  26. enormous, different brave, grin soaked, gorgeous reckless, ignore unusual, greet ill, discover leap, pause speedy, unique ridiculous, tumble

  27. The Forest Friends are thrilled! They are excited to go to the carnival. Thrilled. Say thrilled. (2) Thrilled means excited. Tell me, what word means excited? (2) Thrilled! Good work! When are you thrilled? (2) What about… when you get a present! …Or your friends come over to play! I bet that makes you feel excited. Now, lift the flap. Look! These boys are at a birthday party. They are excited. They are thrilled! Tell me, what does thrilled mean? (3) Excited! That’s right.

  28. Marquez Monkeys Around • The friends all tried to help Ellie Elephant. Why did they help Ellie? (3) Because she couldn’t get out by herself. She was stuck! The friends were worried, so they worked together to get Ellie out.

  29. Measures of instructional content are administered periodically.

  30. Tier 2 Intervention: Iterative Testing and Development Phase

  31. Timeline • Year 1, 2008-2009: intervention development • Year 2, 2009-2010: pilot study • Year 3, 2010-2011: early efficacy study with single case design, implemented by research staff • Year 4: 2011-2012: early efficacy study, group design with embedded single case design, implemented by research staff • Year 5: 2012-2013: efficacy trial with randomized cluster design, implemented by classroom staff

  32. Year 3 VC Early Efficacy Study 2010-2011

  33. Participants • 9 preschool children in 3 classrooms were identified with limited oral language skills in fall. • Multiple gating procedures for identification that included a teacher survey, Picture Naming IGDI 2.0, norm-referenced tests.

  34. Characteristics of Participants • PPVT-IV: M = 84.3, Range 78 – 96; CELF-P2: M = 86.4, Range 73 - 94

  35. Method • Single-case repeated acquisition design • Intervention was 9 books with embedded vocabulary and comprehension lessons. • Implemented by research staff • Measures: • Mastery monitoring probes at pretest and posttest for each book • 2 outcomes: Vocabulary and Comprehension

  36. Mastery Monitoring Items and Scoring • Taught Vocabulary • Maximum score at pretest and posttest was 4 • Untaught Vocabulary • Maximum score at pretest and posttest was 2 • 2 points possible per word • "Tell me, what does enormous mean?“ • "Really big" 2 points • “means a big building” 1 points • “I don’t know” 0 points

  37. Mastery Monitoring Items and Scoring • Comprehension • Maximum score at pretest and posttest was 6. • Three 2-point comprehension questions "At the end of the story, Ellie is happy. Why is Ellie happy?“ • “Because she made new friends” 2 points • “Because she likes playing” 1 point • “Her big” 0 points

  38. Year 3 Results: Vocabulary

  39. Year 3 Results: Vocabulary • Average number of words learned (per child) = 8.11, Range 3 - 13 • Average number of children who learned each word = 4.06, Range 0 – 8 • Lowest “unusual” - no children learned • Highest “ill” – 8 children learned

  40. Year 3 Results: Comprehension

  41. Year 3 Results: Comprehension • Criterion for treatment effect: • Pretest-posttest difference of at least 2 • Treatment effects for most participants for many books (Range: 0 - 6 books). • Average gain score per book was 1.1 points (SD = 1.66, Range = -4 - 4)

  42. We learned a lot…

  43. …but there was still work to be done.

  44. Revisions for Year 4 • Replaced 5 words, rewrote 1 story, revised 7 embedded lessons. • Words that were replaced were the lowest performing words (e.g., unusual). • Lessons that were revised were for lower performing words and were based on observations from the facilitators. • EXAMPLE: picture for ‘ridiculous’ was changed from an illustration in the story to a photo of a ridiculous dog. (next slide)

  45. Revisions for Year 4 • Inclusion of simple unit review books • Repeat of lessons from a set of 3 books • Development of Unit Tests • Measure of vocabulary learning in 3 books plus a review book • Designed to be administered ~ once per month • Refinements to training materials, staff manuals, fidelity procedures, scoring reliability • Development of the Assessment of Story Comprehension

  46. Year 4 Study • Randomized group design with embedded single case design • 3 classrooms with 6 children in each, children randomly assigned to treatment or delayed treatment. • Intervention implemented by research staff

  47. Year 4 Participants • N = 18; 11 girls, 7 boys • African American • Recruited from public pre-K settings • Identified as having limited oral language skills

More Related