towards scalable emergent literacy interventions: the role of context anita s. mcginty university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Towards Scalable Emergent Literacy Interventions: The Role of Context
Anita S. McGintyUniversity of Virginia
Fourth Annual IES Research ConferenceWashington, D.C.June 9, 2009
Acknowledgements
Pre-doctoral Training Fellow from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (Grant R305B040049 to University of Virginia)
Grant DC04933, National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
Thank you to the participating teachers, families, and children. A special thanks to my dissertation committee Laura Justice (advisor), Sara Rimm-Kaufman, Marcia Invernizzi, and Xitao Fan.
The Problem
-67% of fourth-grade children do not read at proficient level
- 33% of fourth-grade children cannot read at even a basic level
(NAEP, 2007)
Not Eligible for F/R Lunch Eligible for F/R Lunch
The Inequality of the Problem
Malleable Factors: Emergent Literacy
ComprehensionWord Decoding
SpellingWriting
Phonological Awareness
Print Knowledge
Orallanguage
Emergent Literacy Skills
Conventional LiteracySkills
Interventions
- Proliferation of commercially available emergent literacy instructional tools
- Few have evidence of efficacy or effectiveness
- “Mixed results” across efficacy studies question robustness of interventions
Developing Effective Interventions
Observations
Design/Feasibility
Efficacy
Effectiveness/Scale-Up
23%
3%
9%
53%
IES Funded Projects
Developing Effective Interventions
Observations
Design/Feasibility
Efficacy
Effectiveness/Scale-Up
Are there malleable factors that could be the target of intervention?
What does intervention look like?
How potent was the change under specified, controlled conditions?
How robust was the change under real-world conditions?
Scalable Solutions
“Scale-up is not a euphemism for the uncritical diffusion of interventions ….
To the contrary, scale-up research is doomed to fail if practitioners and policymakers expect it to generate absolute solutions …
A context-based approach to scale-up research provides the evidence that educators need to select the interventions that are most likely to work in specific settings.”
(McDonald, 2006, p. 21)
Contextualizing What Works
Observations
Design/Feasibility
Efficacy
Effectiveness/Scale-Up
Are there malleable factors that could be the target of intervention?
What does intervention look like?
How potent was the change under specified, controlled conditions?
How robust was the change under real-world conditions?
Do these factors vary by child or context?
Is it specifically suited for certain children?
Do these effects vary by child or context?
Does it work when used at- scale for the children and in the settings where it is best suited?
Environment
Experience/ Intervention
A Framework for Contextualization
11
Child
Model based on Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006
Socio-economicstatus
Frequency of home literacy
Predictors of Print Knowledge in Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI)
Language,Attention
Difficulties
Quality of book
reading
McGinty & Justice, 2009
Variable Model 1 Model 2
Model 3 Model 4
β β β β
SES .31* .32* .32* .25
Intrinsic Factors
Language
Attentional Difficulties
.12
.11
.11
.10
.06
.13
Environmental Factors
Frequency of Home Literacy.08
.24
Quality of Book Reading .35*
*p < .05
Key Findings: Print Knowledge Outcomes
Attention as a Moderator
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-1 0 1
Quality of Home Literacy (Z-score)
Pri
nt K
now
ledg
e (Z
-Sco
re)
low problems
high problems
Attention
Implications
(a) The relation of book reading and literacy outcomes is diminished in children with SLI
(b) Adult behaviors may be important to the learning of children with weak attentional skills
(c) Pieces of experiences may meet some, but not all, of a child’s learning needs
15
Read It Again
Language and Literacy Curriculum Supplement for Preschoolers Who Are Academically At-Risk
16
LanguageJustice, McGinty, Cabell,
Kilday, Knighton, & Huffman, in press
As Children’s Language Ability Decreases, RIA Benefits Decrease
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Prin
t Con
cept
s
Low Medium High
Initial Language Ability
TreatmentComparison
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Alph
abet
Kno
wle
dge
Low Medium High
Initial Language Ability
TreatmentComparison
Initial Language Ability
Implications
(a) How do we design intervention to be more robust to language variation?
(b) What are the active ingredients of interventions?
18
Explicit Print Instruction during Shared Reading and Preschoolers’ Print Knowledge Gains
ExplicitPrint
Instruction
General Classroom
Quality
Language,Attention
McGinty, Justice, Piasta, & Kaderavek, 2009
Explicit Print Instruction
“ Here is our title. Let’s read the words- “Giggle Giggle Quack.” Giggle begins with the letter G. This is the letter G… Sam, can you come up and show me the letter G on the page?”
Explicit Print Instruction • Utterances related to words, letters, book and
print, and print meaning.
20
Intensity Effects of Explicit Print Instruction
21
Print Knowledge(Pre-Test)
R2= .74
X1 X3X2 Y1 Y2 Y3
.76*
.71* .61 * .76*.73*.84 * .71*
Print Knowledge(Post- Test)
Dose
.15
Intensity of Explicit Print Instruction
What Conditions?
For Whom? Breit-Smith, McGinty, Justice, & Fan, 2009
Explicit Print Instruction: For Whom and Under What Conditions ?
ExplicitPrint
Instruction
General Classroom
Quality
Language,Attention
Effects of Explicit Print Instruction
Final Model
Predictor Coefficient
Level 1
Language Ability .01*
Attentional Abilities .02*
Level 2
Classroom Quality .12*
Explicit Print Instruction
.07
Note: This model Include the covariates of age, fall print knowledge, and study condition and environmental support for print. Additional covariates considered and found to be non-significant include gender, child attendance, maternal educational attainment, teacher years of experience, program type, teacher educational attainment
Explicit print instruction (Z-Score)
Explicit print instruction varies in its association to children’s spring print knowledge as a function of classroom quality
Classroom Quality
Explicit print instruction (Z-Score)
The association between explicit print instruction and children’s spring print knowledge varies as a function of children’s attentional abilities
Implications
a) Explicit print instruction was robust to variation in language skill
b) Explicit print instruction appears to be especially suited for children with weak attention skills
c) Explicit print instruction appears robust to lower classroom quality
26
Discussion
a) Value of asking “what works for whom and under what conditions”
b) Value of identifying proximal moderators to intervention
27
Future Directionsa) Read It Again modifications and
evaluation in needs-based rural Appalachian preschool programs
b) Read It Again replication in early childhood special education settings
28