Forskning s Review

7/28/2019 Forskning s Review

1/481

Forsknings-review - Sprogpakken.dk

Evaluation of programs forimproving language and earlyliteracy skills in young children

Literature review or Sprogpakken

Aims & PurposesThe purpose o this review is to examine the research on programs and practices thataim to improve oral language and early literacy skills in young children. This review willprovide evidence concerning the efcacy o a range o programs and practices available today-care teachers. This review also aims to raise awareness among day-care teachers aboutthe range o dierent programs and practice that have been developed.

This review examined the ollowing questions:

1. Does a curriculum/systematic approach to supporting language and early literacy skillsin young children produce better outcomes than a non-curriculum/non-systematic ap-proach?Our interest in addressing this question was to examine whether available evidence

indicates whether a systematic curriculum based approach to early learning is equiva-lent, superior or inerior to individual lesson plans developed by individual day careteachers.

2. Do all curriculum/systematic approaches have equivalent outcomes or do some have abetter eect on language and early literacy skills?A large number o dierent curriculum programs have been developed (or an over-view see Table 2). We were interested in examining whether all have an equal eecton early language or literacy outcomes.

3. What specifc practices can teachers working in early day care centres use to promotelanguage and early literacy skills?

In addition to examining entire curricula, which incorporate a range o dierent prac-tices, the current review also examined specifc practices which teachers may be ableto use. In this review we examined which specifc practices produced the best out-comes on childrens language and literacy skills.


2/48

Approach & MethodologyIn undertaking this review, it was necessary that a representative sample o intervention

studies that have examined the eectiveness o language and pre-literacy programs beidentifed. In meeting this goal, a key issue addressed was how to best fnd previous re-search. A key concern when undertaking any review is to reduce the impact o selectionbias. In the context o a systematic or traditional review, selection bias occurs when re-searchers either knowingly or unknowingly include articles that support a particular pointo view (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). In the case o evaluating interventionsand trials, this might be only including studies that report a therapeutic eect o an inter-vention. Perhaps the main challenge in undertaking reviews, particularly o interventions,is that selection bias can unintentionally occur. For example, research has shown thatthere is a publication bias towards reporting results that only show positive eects (Egger& Smith, 1998). This might mean that it can be easier to fnd studies showing positive e-ects compared to null eects leading to selection bias in the review.

In an attempt to overcome the aorementioned problems, methodologists and researchersdeveloped a more objective approach or integrating research, which is called a system-atic review (Higgins & Green, 2008). In a systematic review, the researcher/s are requiredto explicitly describe all the steps used to fnd studies, and also which criteria was usedto include or exclude studies rom their review. The steps used to describe the literaturereview process involves explicitly stating which databases were searched, the key wordsused in the databases, the years that have been searched and also how many articles wereound and which ones were included. In addition, researchers may oten contact dierentorganisations to fnd non-published studies as well.

In the pedagogical feld, a number o systematic reviews have already been been under-taken that have evaluated best practices in promoting language and early literacy skills

in young children. These systematic reviews were the starting point in which to identiypotentially useul studies or the current review. A summary o each o these reviews ispresented in Table 1.

Additional research articles or the current review were ound ollowing a literature searchundertaken at the Centre or Child Language at The University o Southern Denmark inOdense, Denmark in November 2010. In this search the PsycIno and PubMed databaseswere used to indentiy studies published between 2007 and 2010. A list o the key wordsand search strategy in this search is presented in Appendix A. This search returned a totalo 359 articles.

The systematic reviews reported in Table 1 along with the literature search undertaken atthe Centre or Child Language were used to identiy past research to be included in this

review. Once these studies were ound, inclusion criteria were applied. Applying the cri-teria was necessary to assist in synthesising and generalising the results. These criteria arenow described in turn.

Criterion 1: Intervention studies required both treatment and control groups. To be includ-ed in the review all studies examining the efcacy o dierent intervention/practices wererequired to have at least one Intervention and one Control group in a between-subjectsdesign study.

Identifying Studies

to Include in theReview

Criteria forSelecting Studies

to be Included inthe Review.

2



3/48

3Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Table1.SystematicReviewsusedtoIdentifyStudies

Au

thors

Years

Searched

Num

berostud

iesreviewed

Burger

(2010)

1990-2

010a

32

Busetal.(

199

5)

Not

stated

inpaper.

However,

studie

sse

lected

in

the

reviewwerepu

blished

between

1951-1

993.

29

Cham

bersetal.(

2010)

1960-2

010

22

Manzetal.(2

010)

1994-2

007

43

McGro

der

&H

yra

(2009)

Not

stated

inpaper.

However,

studie

sse

lected

in

the

reviewwerepu

blished

between

1997-2

007.

12

Moletal.(

2008)

1988-2

007

11

Nat

ional

Early

Literacy

Panel

(2008)

1887-2

008

234

Reeseetal.(2

010)

Nostated

inpaper.

However,s

tudiesse

lected

in

the

reviewwerepu

blished

between

1994-2

010

11

Notes:aAu

tho

rsnoteoneexcep

tion

inw

hichastu

dypu

blished

in1987was

inclu

ded.


4/48

Criterion 2: Participants were required to be randomly allocated to treatment and controlgroups. The second criterion required that the intervention studies randomly assign chil-dren to treatment and control conditions. Randomised controlled trials are considered oneo the best methods to evaluate the relationship between an intervention and outcome

(e.g., Clarke, 1998; Cochrane, 1973).

Criterion 3: Endpoint measures needed to include assessment o language, pre-literacy orliteracy skills. The third criterion required that studies evaluate the efcacy o the inter-vention/practice via assessment o childrens language and literacy skills. Specifcally, aterthe intervention had been presented, children in the Intervention and Control Groupsneeded to be presented with a test assessing their language, pre-literacy or literacy skills.It should be noted that some o the studies identifed in the systematic reviews only mea-sured the eectives o intervention on cognitive and behavioural development. Sincethese domains are beyond the scope o this review, they were excluded.

Criterion 4: Psychometric Properties o the Endpoint measures needed to be published orreported in research article: The ourth criterion was that the test assessing language, pre-

literacy or literacy skills needed to have the psychometric properties o the test published.This criterion eectively meant that only studies were included that had used a publishedstandardised test to evaluate the outcomes o an intervention. The most undamental rea-son or including this criterion was so the tests reliability and validity could be known.

Criterion 5: Study needed to report results that could be extracted or meta-analysis. Thefnal criterion required that published studies report enough detail in the results to allowdata to be extracted and converted to an eect size. In this review all result rom the stud-ies were converted to an eect size measure called Cohens d (Rosenthal, 1994). A descrip-tion o this index is provided now provided.

In this review the eectiveness o interventions and practices are quantifed using a nu-merical index called an eect size. An eect size numerically describes the amount o

variance in a dependent/outcome variable that is explained by the independent/predictorvariable. In the context o examining interventions, an eect size quantifes the magni-tude o dierence between treatment and control groups ollowing treatment/interven-tion. The larger the eect sizes, the larger the dierence between treatment and controlgroups.

The eect size can be considered to operate as a unction o many observed and unob-served variables. In randomised controlled trials, the eectiveness o the intervention/treatment is considered to be a key determinant o the magnitude o the eect size. Anoth-er contributing actor is the measurement error or reliability o the tests used to measureoutcome. As the measurement error o the test increases, the eect size decreases (Hunter& Schmidt, 1990). In the context o this review, measurement error is a concern or at

least two reasons. The frst is that tests that have a high level o measurement error pro-duce small eect sizes. Thus i an intervention is eective and the test used to measurelanguage or literacy outcomes is poorly constructed, this will produce small eect sizes.Perhaps the most troublesome case arises when comparing the results o two or morestudies that examine dierent language or literacy interventions using dierent tests thathave dierent levels o measurement error. I one o the tests has a high level o measure-ment error (i.e., is a bad test) and the other low (i.e., is a good test), even i the eective-ness o the dierent intervention is the same, studies that have bad tests will produceresults suggesting the intervention does not work even though it does. This in turn willlead to incorrect conclusions about the eectiveness o an intervention.

The criterion that studies need to have psychometric properties reported was to be able tocontrol or the aorementioned problems. Published standardised tests not only almost al-

ways have psychometric properties published, but oten these are verifed by independentresearch teams and published in peer review journals. This stands in contrast to studieswhere researchers have devised their own test and do not report thepsychometric properties o their instrument.

A brief overviewof effect sizes and

Cohens d

4



5/48

Quantiying the Efcacy o Programs/Practices: Eect sizes, statistical signifcance, preci-sion, consistency o eects and clinical importance.

A central outcome o this review is to be able to compare dierent programs/practices. In

order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to quantiy the results o all the dierent studiesso they are on the same scale. The process and rationale by which this is achieved is anal-ogous to converting dierent measures o distance (e.g., eet, inches) into centimetres. Thescale used in this review to evaluate the dierent intervention studies is called Cohensd (Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009). This index describes the dierence between twogroups in terms o a standardised mean dierence. Cohens d is one type o eect size. Asa guide to interpreting this value, when the Cohens d value is equal to zero, this meansthere is no dierence between two groups. In the context o intervention studies, a valueo zero would mean that there is no evidence to suggest that an intervention/practice isassociated with better language/literacy outcomes. In this review positive Cohens d valuesindicate that the Intervention Group obtained higher scores on a language/literacy testthat a Control Group. Negative Cohens d value indicates that a Control Group obtainedhigher scores.

In the research literature there is a reasonably well-accepted taxonomy interpreting Co-hens d values (Cohen, 1988), whereby a value o 0.2 is considered a small eect size, 0.5is medium and 0.8 is large. Cohens d can also be considered to measure the amount ooverlap between two distributions. For example, when Cohens d = 0 there is 100% overlapin scores between the Control Group and Intervention Group (i.e., there is no dierencebetween groups) and when Cohens d = .8 there is 52.6% overlap in distributions (i.e., thereis a dierence between the groups). In short, in the context o this review, larger positiveeect size values indicate that an intervention/practice is eective.

Another issue that needs to be taken into account when comparing dierent Cohens dvalues between dierent studies is how precise or accurate the value is. Any Cohens dvalue observed or a particular study describes how eective an intervention was or theindividuals participating in that study. However, in this review the ocus is in on beingable to generalise the result rom a specifc study or sample to a broader population. Thus,the question o interest in this review is how well a Cohens d value accurately represents

the type o eect that would be observed i an intervention was administered to all chil-dren. One actor that inuences how well we can generalise the results rom a specifcstudy to a population is the sample size. It is important to rememberthat when a study is undertaken a sample o children/adults is takenrom a population. The larger the sample is, the more accurately thefndings o the study will represent the whole population (assuming


5


6/48

random selection o participants). Thus, a study which has 1000 participants almost al-ways will be more accurate than a study that has 20 participants. When comparisons aremade between studies, it is important that the precision o the Cohens d value is takeninto account. For example, consider the ollowing scenario. Suppose a study reported a

Cohens d value o .8 but only and 10 people participating and another study reported avalue o .3 but had 3000 people participating. Which study should we put the most conf-dence in? All things being equal, the answer would be the second study with 3000 becauseit has more people and thereore the eect size value is more likely to be accurate.

Statisticians have developed various methods or measuring how precise an observed e-ect size is, given the number o people there are in a study. One approach is to use con-fdence intervals (Gardner & Altman, 1986). Confdence intervals provide us with an esti-mate o how precise an eect size, like Cohens d, might be. When we compute a valueor Cohens d, we can then determine the confdence interval or that value. The conf-dence intervals tell us with a specifed level o probability, what the real (or population)value might be. Confdence intervals comprise two values, a lower and an upper value.For example, suppose a study that reports an eect size o .5. Based on the studys sample

size, we can then work out confdence intervals. The lower value might be .3 and the up-per value might be .7. The population value is thought to be somewhere between .3 and.7. In research, it is common to compute confdence intervals so they tell us that the realvalue is likely to lie between the upper and lower value and we can assert this with a prob-ability o 95%. That is, we expect to be correct 95 times out o 100 (or incorrect 5 times in100). In this review we report confdence intervals or all observed eect sizes.

In some o the analyses in this review, Cohens d values rom dierent studies are com-bined and an overall average is computed. Eect sizes rom dierent studies can be com-bined using fxed- or random-eects models. In this review all eect sizes were combinedusing a random-eects model (or details see Hedges & Vevea, 1998). In random-eectsmodels, the averaged Cohens d value (or any averaged eect size) is considered to repre-sent the central tendency o a population o dierence eect sizes. In principle, adoptinga random-eects model to derive an average eect size computed rom multiple individualstudies allows one to make generalisations beyond the methodology o the individual stud-ies.

Another aspect o the research fnding examined is the amount o variability there is be-tween studies. When comparing Cohens d values rom groups, the eect sizes will vary.Some o this variation is attributable to chance, such as dierences due to the randomselection o participants to be involved in the study. However, another source o variationmight reect more meaningul dierences. In this review the amount o heterogeneitybetween studies is to be quantifed using the I2 statistic. This statistic expresses, as apercentage, the amount o variation or heterogeneity between studies that is not due tochance. A rough taxonomy has been orwarded whereby 25% variation is considered low,

50% moderate and 75% high (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003).

Combining Resultsin DifferentStudies

MeasuringVariabilityBetween Studies

6



7/48

3 articles included in the

final review7 articles found at CfB

by searching reference

lists.

Number of articles included

in the review

41

1507 articles found

from keyword search in

PubMed og PsycInfo

with limiters at CfB

Articles screened

manually for

relevance

42 studies identified by

Burger (2010), Bus et

al. (1995), Chambers et

al. (2010), Manz et al.

(2010), McGroder &

Hyra (2009), Mol et al.

(2008), National Early

Literacy Panel (2008),

and Reese et al. (2010)

160 articles selected by

title, abstract and/or

keywords.

8 articles removed due

to selection criteria,

although included in

the Danish materials.

3 articles removed here

due to selection criteria,

but included in the

Danish materials.

34 studies

3 studies4 studies

Studies, Curricula/Programs and Measures included in the Review

Ater applying the criteria outlined in Figure 1, a total o 41 studies were identifed thatmet the criteria. A brie description o each study is presented in Table 2.

Figure 1 Process or identiying studies

The 41 fles came rom three main sources: reviews, database searches, and the reerencelists rom the articles we ound. The 11 articles that were disallowed here due to selectioncriteria are included in the Danish material, Forskningskortlgning a behov or sprogvur-dering, eektive sprogindsatser og pdagogisk eteruddannelse.

Studies used in thereview


7


8/48

8Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Table2.Desc

riptionofStudiesIncludedintheReview

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual

Intervention/Practices

Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

AbtAssociates

Inc.

(2007)

United

States

Notstated.

Onlynoted

thatpartici-

pantswereof

schoolage

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

BreakthroughtoL

it-

eracy

Breakthroughto

Literacy(n=350)

Providedwithma-

terials

only.Didnot

follow

curriculum(n

=580

AbtAssociates

Inc.

(2007)

United

States

Notstated.

Onlynoted

thatpartici-

pantswereof

schoolage

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

BuildingEarlyLan-

guageandLiteracy

BuildingEarlyLan-

guageandLiteracy

(n=319)

Providedwithma-

terials

only.Didnot

follow

curriculum(n

=648)

AbtAssociates

Inc.

(2007)

United

States

Notstated.

Onlynoted

thatpartici-

pantswereof

schoolage

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

ReadySetLeap!

ReadySetLeap!(n

=350)

Providedwithma-

terials

only.Didnot

follow

curriculum(n

=648)

Aram(2006)

Israel

47

LowSES

Mixed

Notstated

1.DialogicReading;

2.AlphabeticSkills

Program;3.Combined

StorybookReading&

AlphabeticSkills

1.StorybookRead-

ingProgram(n=37)

2.AlphabeticSkills

Program(n=38)3.

Combined(n=40)

Untreated/standard

educationalpractice

(n=41)

Aram&Birron

(2004)

Israel

45

LowSES

Mixed

83.3%of

samplespoke

Hebrewas

theirrstlan-

guage;16.7%

spokeRussian

astheirrst

language.

1.DialogicReading;2.

AlphabeticSkillsP

ro-

gram

1.JointReading(n=

38);2JointWriting

(n=38)

Untreated/standard

educationalpractice

(n=24)

Arnoldetal.(1994)

United

States

29

MiddletoUpper

Notstated

Notstated

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DirectTraining

(n=23);2Video

Training(n=14).

Childrenreadtoin

normalmanner(n

=27)


9/48

9Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual


Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

Asseletal.(2007)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

DoorstoDiscove

ry

DoorstoDiscovery

Controlclassroom

characterisedbya

lack

ofspeci-

edcu

rriculumthat

include

dascopeand

sequenceofactivi-

ties.

(Asseletal.,

200

7,p.475)

Bakeretal.(19

98,

Cohort1)

United

States

58

LowSES

Mixed

Acrossboth

Cohorts

34.6%ofthe

sampledid

notspeak

Englishas

theirrstlan-

guage.

1.HIPPYProgram

1.HIPPY(n=37)

Standa

rdpractice(n

=32)

Bakeretal.(19

98,

Cohort2)

United

States

54

LowSES

Mixed

1.HIPPYProgram

1.HIPPY(n=47)

Standa

rdpractice(n

=66)

Bierman(2008)

United

States

48

LowSES

Mixed

English&

Spanish

1.REDIProgram

1.REDIProgram&

HeadStart

Head

StartOnly

(stand

ardpractice)

Chow&McBride-

Chang(2003)

HongKong,

China

64

Notstated

Chinese

Cantonese

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DialogicReading

(n=27)2.Typical

Reading(n=25)

Nosys

tematicread-

ingor

provisionof

books(n=28)

Chowetal.(20

08)

HongKong,

China

64

Unclear

Chinese

Cantonese

1.DialogicReadi

ng

withMorphologyTrain-

ing(morphologic

al

awareness);2.Dia-

logicReading;3Typical

Reading(n=37

)

1.DialogicReading

withMorphological

Training(n=38);2.

DialogicReading(n

=37).

Nobookswere

provided.Parents

engageinnormal

practicewithchil-

dre

n(n=36)

Crain-Thoreson

&

Dale(1999)

United

States

52

Childrenwith

specialeduca-

tionalneeds,

SESnotexplic-

itly

Notstated

Notstated

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.ParentDialogic

Reading(n=10);

2.TeacherDialogic

Reading(n=13).

Stand

ardpractice

(whichdidinclude

group

storytime;n

=9)


10/48

10Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual


Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

Cronanetal.(1

996)

United

States

28

LowSES

MainlyLa-

tino(Note:

Studycon-

ductedinthe

U.S.)

English&

Spanish

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.Highnumberof

instructionalvisits/

DialogicReading

(n=83);2.Low

numberofinstruc-

tionvisits/Dialogic

Reading(n=73).

Typicalhomerear-

ingpractices(n=

69)

Fischeletal.(2

007)

United

States

Agedbetween

45and60

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

LetsBegingwith

the

LetterPeople

LetsBeginwiththe

LetterPeople(n=

185)

High

/Scopecur-

riculum

materials(n

=150)

Fischeletal.(2

007)

United

States

Agedbetween

45and60

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Waterford

Waterford(n=172)

High

/Scopecur-

riculum

materials(n

=150)

Girolamettoetal.

(1995)

Canada

29

Childrenwith

languagedelays,

SESnotstated

Notstated

English

1.FocusedStimula

tion

1.FocusedStimula-

tion(n=8)

Delay

edtreatment

(n=7)

Huebner(2000)

United

States

29

Mixed,includ-

inginfantsat

riskforlan-

guageproblems.

Mainlywhite

English

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DialogicReading

(n=88)

2.Co

ntrolGroup

(provid

edwithsame

resourcesastreat-

mentgroup,but

notprovidedwith

inform

ationabout

dialo

gicstyleof

reading

,i.e.,childas

centre

ofthestory

telling;n=41).

Lonigan&Whitehu-

rst(1998)

United

States

45

LowSES

Notstated

English

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.SchoolReading;

2.HomeReading;

3.School&Home

Reading

Stand

ardpractice

Loniganetal.(1999)

United

States

45

LowSES

MainlyAf-

ricanAmeri-

cans

Notstated

1.Shared/TypicalR

ead-

ing2.DialogicReading

1.Shared/Typical

Reading(n=29);2.

DialogicReading(n

=34)

Standardpreschool

curriculum(n=32)


11/48

11Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual


Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

McGill-Franzenetal.

(1999)

United

States

Notclearly

stated(e.g.,

Inthepaperit

isonlynoted

that...some

childrenwere

only4yearso

f

ageatpretest-

ingandother

childrenwere

nearage6.,

p.69)

Mixed:Low

SESandNon-

LowSES

Notstated

Notstated

1.GeneralistLiteracy

Promotion

1.TeacherTraining

&Books(n=164);

2.Books(n=139).

Noboo

ksORteach-

ertrain

ing(n=153)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

LanguageFocusedCur-

riculum

LanguageFocused

Curriculum(n=97)

High

/Scopecur-

riculum

materials(n

=93)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

DLMwithOpenCourt

Reading

DLMwithOpen

CourtReading(n=

101)

High

/Scopecur-

riculum

materials(n

=97)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

LiteracyExpress

LiteracyExpress(n

=90)

High/Scopecur-

riculummaterials(n

=8

6)

PCER(2008)

United

States

54

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

ReadySetLeap!

ReadySetLeap!(n

=149)

High/Scopecur-

riculummaterials(n

=120)

PCER(2008)

United

States

54

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

BrightBeginnings

BrightBeginnings

(n=103)

Nonspeciccurri-

culawithafocuson

basicschoolreadi-

ness(n=105)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

DoorstoDiscove

ry

DoorstoDiscovery

(n=101)

Teacher-developed,

nonspe

ciccurricula

(n=96)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

LetsBeginwiththe

LetterPeople

LetsBeginwiththe

LetterPeople(n=

100)

Teacher-developed,

nonspe

ciccurricula

(n=73)


12/48

12Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual


Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

ProjectApproach

ProjectApproach(n

=114)

Teacher-developed,

nonspe

ciccurricula

(n=90)

PCER(2008)

United

States

55

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

CreativeCurriculum

CreativeCurriculum

(n=7

8)

Nonspeciccurri-

culawithafocuson

basicschoolreadi-

ness(n=105)

PCER(2008)

United

States

54

Mixed

Mixed

Notstated

CreativeCurriculum

CreativeCurriculum

(n=97)

Teacher-developed,

nonspeciccurri-

cul

a.(n=97)

Reeseetal.(20

10)

United

States

50

LowSES

Mixed

Acrossthe

different

intervention

andcontrol

groups,per-

centageof

bilingualchil-

drenranged

from41.7-

60%

1.ElaborativeRemi-

niscing2.Dialog

ic

Reading

1.ElaborativeRem-

iniscing(n=12);2.

DialogicReading(n

=10)

Notraining/Standard

Paren

talcare(n=

11)

Robertson&

Wesimer(1999)

United

States

25

Latetalking

infants,Middle

Classhomes

White

English

1.InteractiveChild

CenteredIntervention

1.InteractiveChild

CenteredInterven-

tion(n=11)

DelayedTreatment

(n=10)

Valdez-Mencha

ca&

Whitehurst(1992)

Mexico

31

LowSES

Native

Spanish

1.DialogicReadi

ng

DialogicReading

Arts&

CraftInstruc-

tion

vanBalkometal.

(2010)

TheNether-

lands

25

Developmen-

talLanguage

Delay,Middle

ClassFamilies

Notstated

Notstated

1.VideoHomeTraining

2.DirectChildLan-

guageIntervention

1.VideoHome

Training(n=11)2.

DirectChildLan-

guageIntervention

(DCI;n=11)

Nonon-treatment

con

trolgroup

Wasik&Bond

(2001)

United

States

51

LowSES

African

American

Notstated

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DialogicReading

(n=61)

Participatedinarts,

craft

andscience

activities(n=63).

Wasik&Bond

(2006)

United

States

46

LowSES

African

American

Notstated

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DialogicReading

(n=139)

Provid

edwithsame

boo

ks(n=68)


13/48

13Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Study

Country

Meanageof

participants

(Months)

Socio-Econom-

icStatusofthe

Sample

Ethnicity

Bilingual


Trialed

Intervention

Group/s

Con

trolGroup

Whitehurstetal.

(1988)

United

States

29

MiddleSES

Notstated

Notstated

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1.DialogicReading

(n=29)

Normalreading

Whitehurstetal.

(1994)

United

States

42

LowSES

Mixed

Mainlyfrom

English

speaking

homes

1.DialogicReadi

ng

1:Teachers&Par-

ents(n=20);2

Teachersonly(n=

26)

Noreading(n=24).

Childreninthecon-

trolconditionen-

gaged

insupervised

playsessions.

Whitehurstetal.

(1999)

United

States

Notstated.

Paperonhly

reportschil-

drenwerein

the2ndGrade

LowSES

Notstated

90%of

samplespoke

Englishas

theirrstlan-

guage

1.CombinedDialo

gic

Reading&SoundF

oun-

dations

1.CombinedDia-

logicReading&

SoundFoundations

RegularHeadStart

Cu

rriculum

Zevenbergenet

al.

(2003)

United

States

56

LowSES

Mixed

Notstated

1.DialogicReading&

HeadStartProgram

(n

=71)

1.DialogicReading

&HeadStartPro-

gram(n=71)

RegularHeadStart

Curriculum(n=52)


14/48

Curricula, Interventions and PracticesEvaluated in Studies that Met Criteria.The studies included in the review, collectively evaluated 22 dierent programs/prac-tices that aim to improve language and literacy skills in young children. These program/practices are summarised in Table 3. There is considerable diversity in the range o pro-grams/practices covered in the studies that met the criteria or inclusion into this review.Some programs/practices can best considered as a complete structured curriculum orimplementation into day care (e.g., Bright Beginnings, see Table 3 or summary). Otherprogram/practices comprise a single task. The dialogic reading program best typifes thisapproach (e.g., Whitehurst, et al., 1988). Another type o program/practices identifed in-volving combining structured curriculum with a single task. For example, Bierman (2008)examined the eectiveness o combining a dialogic reading program with a phonologicalawareness program. Dierences between the program/practices also exist with respect toimplementation. The studies included in this review included program/practices that have

been implemented by teachers, (e.g., Baker, et al., 1998) and speech pathologists (Robert-son & Weismer, 1999).

14



15/48

15Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Table3.Sum

maryofPrograms/PracticesEvaluatedintheStudiesInclude

dintheReview.

Name

Description

Intervention/Curriculum/Practice

Study/Studiesevaluati

ngInter-

vention/Curriculum/Practice

Break

through

toLiteracy

Break

through

toLiteracy

isasystemat

ican

dintegrated

lit-

eracyan

dlanguageprogrampu

blished

by

the

Wrigh

tGroup,

whichaimsatpromot

ing

language

developmen

tan

dliteracy

skillsamongpresc

hoo

lch

ildren.T

heprogramusessystematic,

direc

tinstruct

ion

bu

iltaroun

daseriesowee

klybooks

inthe

classroom.I

nteract

ivecompu

terprogramsarealsouse

dto

engagestu

den

tsinindividua

lize

dac

tivi

ties,a

ndareorgan

ized

aroun

dthewee

klyboo

k,t

osuppor

ttheir

literacysk

illsan

d

prin

tknow

ledge.

(Cham

bers

etal.,

2010

,p.1

3)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

AbtAssoc

iates(20

07)

Brigh

tBeg

in-

nings

Brigh

tBeg

inn

ings

isan

integratedcurr

icu

lumw

itha

ocus

onlanguagean

dearly

literacy.

Thecurr

icu

lumgoalsare

to

provi

deach

ild-cen

tere

d,l

iteracy-ocuse

dprogram

that

iscon-

sisten

tan

dtoinclu

de

instruc

tion

thatad

dresses

thenee

dso

thew

holech

ild

.Thecurr

iculumwasespec

ially

des

igned

to

provi

decon

tinu

ity

inthepresc

hoo

ltosecon

d-gra

decurr

icula.

Brigh

tBeg

inn

ings

inclu

desn

inecurr

icu

lumun

its

that

ocus

onlanguagean

dliteracy,m

athemat

ics,socialan

dpersonal

developmen

t,hea

lthulliving,sc

ien

tifc

thinking,socialstud-

ies,crea

tivear

ts,p

hys

ical

dev

elopmen

t,an

dtechnology.

The

classroomenvironmen

tisdesigned

toencouragech

ildren

s

activeexp

lora

tionan

dinteract

ionw

ithadu

lts,ot

herch

ildren,

andconcretemater

ials

.Thec

urr

icu

lumalso

inclu

desaparen

t

invo

lvemen

tcomponen

tthat

requ

iresparen

tstobeac

tive

ly

engage

dinthech

ildseducat

ion

(Cham

bersetal.,

2010

,p

13).a

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)

Bu

ilding

Early

Languageand

Literacy

(BELL

)Bu

ilding

Ear

lyLanguageand

Literacy

(BELL)isapresc

hoo

l

supp

lemen

taryprogramaimedatpromot

ingpresc

hoo

lers

general

languagepro

fciency,

phonolog

icalawareness,shared

read

ingsk

ills

,an

dprin

tknow

ledge.C

hildrenrece

ive

two

15-

20m

inu

tes

lessons

dai

ly.C

hildren

slitera

ture

isuse

dinclass-

rooms

tobu

ildvoca

bu

laryan

dpromoteawarenessostory

sequencingan

dcharac

ters.T

heprogramalso

inclu

desshared

read

ing

timean

dp

honologicalawareness

time

tosuppor

t

read

ingsk

illsan

dp

honet

icrea

ding

techn

iques.

(Cham

berse

t

al.,

2010

,p.1

6)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

AbtAssoc

iates(20

07)


16/48

16Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Name

Description



ngInter-


Creat

ive

Cur-

ricu

lum

Creat

ive

Curr

icu

lum

isacom

pre

hensiveapproac

htoeduca-

tion

or

three-

tofve-year-old

children.T

hecurr

icu

lumad-

dresses

ourareaso

developmen

t-soc

ial/emot

ional,p

hys

ical,

cogn

itive,an

dlanguage

deve

lopmen

t.Creat

ive

Curr

icu

lum

requ

ires

thep

hys

icalspaceo

theclassroom

tobestructured

into10interestareas:

blocks,d

ramat

icp

lay,

toysan

dgames,

art,library,d

iscovery,

san

dan

dwater,

musican

dmovemen

t,

cook

ing,an

dcompu

ters.T

im

eisalsoal

lotted

orou

tdoor

activi

ties.T

he

10interestareasare

des

igned

toad

dresscur-

ricu

lumcon

ten

t,suchas

literacy,m

athemat

ics,sc

ience,s

ocial

stu

dies,

thear

ts,a

ndtechnology,

ina

airlyunstructure

dset-

ting

des

igned

topromotechi

ldren

sprocesssk

ills

,suchasob-

serv

ing,exp

loring,an

dproblemso

lving.

Creat

ive

Curr

icu

lum

inclu

desa

Developmen

talCh

ecklist

teac

hersareas

ked

touse

inongo

ingassessmen

tsoch

ildprogress

(Cham

bersetal.,

2010

,p.1

6).

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)

DLMw

ith

Open

Court

Rea

ding

The

DLMEar

lyChildhoo

dExpress

Program

isacompre

hen-

sivecurr

icu

lum,d

esigned

topromotech

ildren

ssocial,e

mo-

tional,i

ntellec

tual,

aest

hetic,

andp

hys

ical

developmen

t.Open

Court

Rea

ding

Pre-

Kcon

tains

eigh

tthemat

icun

its

thatad

dress

children

siden

tity

,am

ilies,

rien

ds,social

interact

ions,

trans-

por

tation,t

hep

hys

icalsenses,nature,

andtransi

tions.

(rom

http://www.b

estevi

dence.o

rg/early/early_ch

ild

_ed/top.h

tm)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)


17/48

17Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Name

Description



ngInter-


Doors

toDis-

covery

The

Doors

toDiscoverycurr

icu

lum

isapresc

hoo

lprogram

that

isbasedon

theareas

iden

tifedas

impor

tan

tor

literacy

success:oral

language,p

hono

logica

lawareness,concep

tso

prin

t,alp

habet

know

ledge,w

riting,an

dcompre

hension.T

he

program

ocuseson

theuseo

learn

ingcen

tersan

dshared

literacyac

tivi

ties

inthepresc

hoo

lclassroom.T

hecurr

icu

lum

ispresen

tedineigh

tthematicun

its

thatcover

top

icssuchas

rien

dsh

ip,

commun

ities,nat

ure,s

ociety

,an

dhea

lth

.Class-

roompract

ices

inclu

de

largean

dsmal

lgroup

teac

her-d

irec

ted

activi

tiesan

dch

ildren

sappl

icat

ionosk

illsan

dindepen

dent

pract

iceonac

tivi

ties

thatare

relatedtothe

themes.T

hecur-

ricu

lumcomponen

tsalso

include

am

ily

learn

ingac

tivi

ties

thatare

des

igned

toosterpa

rtnersh

ips

between

thesc

hoo

l

andthe

am

ily;

initialtrainin

gor

teac

hersan

dongo

ingpro-

ess

ional

developmen

tsupport;an

dassessmen

tstra

tegies

that

are

integrated

intothecurricu

lumun

its.

(Cham

bersetal.,

2010

,p.2

1)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

Asseletal.(

2007);PCE

R(2008)

Language

Focussed

Cur-

ricu

lum

The

Language-

Focuse

dCurri

culum

(LFC)was

developedat

the

Un

iversi

tyo

Kansas

orusew

iththree-

tofve-year-ol

dch

il-

drenw

ithlanguage

lim

itations,

inclu

dingch

ildrenw

ithlan-

guage

impairmen

t,ch

ildren

rom

disadvan

tage

dbac

kgrounds

,

andEngl

ishlanguage

learner

s.Thecurr

icu

lum

hasa

thematic

organ

izat

ionan

docuseson

theuseo

dai

lydramat

icp

lay

to

teac

han

duse

lingu

isticconcep

ts.T

hereare

bot

hteac

her-le

d

andch

ild-le

dac

tivi

tiesw

ithe

xp

lici

tat

ten

tion

toora

llanguage

developmen

tthat

isen

hance

dby

high-qual

ity

teac

her-c

hild

conversat

ions.

Teac

hersusee

ightspec

ifc

languagest

imu

la-

tion

techn

iquesw

hen

interac

tingw

ithch

ildren

intheclass-

room,s

uchaseven

tcasts.

(Cham

bersetal.,

2010

,p.2

5)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)

Lets

Beg

in

withthe

Letter

Peop

le

Let

sBeg

inw

iththe

LetterPeop

leemp

has

izesearly

language

andliteracy

developmen

tthr

oughp

lay.

Inad

dition

toclass-

room

teac

hing,

theprogram

hasastrong

home/paren

tcompo

-

nen

t.Thecurr

icu

lum

isarran

gedinthe

ollow

ing

fve

themes:

1)AllAbou

tMe,

2)An

imals,A

nimals,an

dAn

imals,

3)Every-

one

Has

Nee

ds,

4)Get

ting

Alo

ngw

ithOthers,an

d5)NatureA

ll

Aroun

dUs.

(Cham

bersetal.,2

010)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)


18/48

18Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Name

Description



ngInter-


Literacy

Ex-

press

Literacy

Express

isaprescho

olcurr

icu

lum

that

isdes

igned

topromotech

ildren

semergen

tliteracysk

ills

.Thecurr

icu-

lum

isstructure

daroun

dthemat

icun

its

thataresequence

d

inor

derocomp

lex

ity.

Eac

hun

itinclu

desse

lectedch

ildrens

boo

ks

thatad

dress

theme-relevan

tvoca

bu

lary

orsmal

l-an

d

large-groupread

ingac

tivi

ties.I

nad

dition,e

achthemat

icunit

inclu

dessmal

l-groupac

tivitie

s,con

ducted

three

toour

times

awee

k,

whichprovi

de

homogeneoussmal

lgroupsoch

ildren

withpract

ice

inthesk

illsnee

ded

todeveloporal

language,

phonolog

icalsensi

tivi

ty,a

nd

prin

tawareness.

The

large-group

andex

tensionac

tivi

tiesprov

ideoppor

tun

ities

orch

ildren

to

app

lynew

lyacqu

iredsk

illsin

variedcon

tex

ts.

(Cham

berset

al.,

2010

,p.2

7)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)

Projec

tAp-

proac

h

Pro

ject

Approac

hisase

to

teac

hingstra

tegies

thatenab

les

teac

hers

togu

idech

ildren

through

in-dep

thinvest

igat

ionso

realwor

ldtop

ics.

Thecurr

icu

lum

isdes

igned

tousech

ildrens

interestsas

thestar

tingpoin

tororgan

izingan

ddevelop

ing

classroom

learn

ingac

tivi

ties.

Threecurr

icu

lumcomponen

ts

addressch

ildren

slearn

ingnee

ds:spon

taneousp

lay,system-

aticinstruct

ion,

andpro

jectw

ork

.Apro

ject

isdefnedasan

in-dep

thstu

dyoarealworld

top

icthat

iswor

thyoch

il-

dren

sat

ten

tionan

de

ort.P

rojectscan

be

incorporated

into

anex

istingclassroom

instruc

tionalprograman

dcanex

tend

oversevera

ldaysorwee

ks.T

hestructura

leatureso

Proj-

ectApproac

hinclu

de

discuss

ion,f

eldwor

k,r

epresen

tation,

invest

igat

ion,

anddisp

lay.

Du

ring

thepre

lim

inaryp

lann

ing

stage,

the

teac

herse

lects

the

top

icostu

d(basedprimar

ilyon

classroom

learn

inggoals,chi

ldren

sinterests,an

dtheavai

l-

abilityo

loca

lresources

).The

teac

her

then

bra

instorms

his

orherownexper

ience,k

now

ledge,a

ndideasan

drepresents

them

ina

top

icweb.T

histop

icweb

isrevise

dthroughou

tthe

pro

jectan

duse

dorrecordingprogress.

InProjec

tApproac

h

classrooms,

the

dai

lysc

hedule

isstructure

dso

thatch

ildren

andteac

hersspen

dat

leas

t45to60m

inu

tesengage

dininves

-

tiga

tionan

ddiscovery,t

ypica

lly

insmal

lgroups.

(Cham

bers

etal.,

2010

,p.2

9)

Curr

icu

lum

/Program

PCER(2008)


19/48


20/48


21/48

21Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Name

Description



ngInter-


Dialogic

Read

-

ingw

ithMor-

phology

Train

-

ing

Inthisprogrammorp

hology

train

ingwasad

ded

todialogic

read

ingpract

ices.T

hemorph

ology

train

ing

invo

lved

ocusing

children

sat

ten

tion

tomorph

osyl

labicproper

tieso

language

andtoiden

tiymorp

hemes.

Childrenwerealsoprovi

dedwit

h

homop

hone

train

ing

that

ocuse

don

train

ingch

ildren

that

thesamesoun

dm

ighthaved

ieren

tmean

ings.

Chowetal.(

200

8)

Focuse

dStim-

ulation

The

Focuse

dStimu

lationprogramwas

rom

the

Hanen

Pro-

gram

that

trainsparen

tsto:

(a)ol

low

thech

ildslead

toes-

tablisha

jointocus,

(b)mode

llanguage

that

iscon

tingen

ton

thech

ildsocus

(e.g.,

labels,expansions,commen

ts)an

d(c)

encourage

thech

ildspar

ticip

ation

inconversat

ion

bypromo

t-

ing

turn-tak

ing.

Thisprogram

con

ten

twasadap

tedtoinclude

threemod

ifca

tionsconsisten

tw

itha

ocuse

dst

imu

lation

approac

h.F

irst,m

otherswere

taugh

ttointroducespec

ifc

targetwor

ds

during

thesecon

dparen

ttrain

ingsess

ion.T

en

othe

20se

lectedwor

dswereran

dom

lyassigned

tothe

targe

t

wor

dcon

dition

by

the

invest

igators.

Paren

tsweregivena

list

othe

targetwor

dsan

dinstructed

touse

them

innatura

listic

rou

tines.F

orexamp

le,

iatargetwor

dwas

baby,t

heparen

t

was

instructed

tomodel

thiswor

dinthe

ollow

ingmanner

ina

jointac

tionrou

tineorga

me:

baby.

lets

hug

the

baby,

hug

baby,

you

hug

the

bab

y.

baby,

etc.

Atno

timewas

thech

ildas

ked

torepea

tthe

wor

d.I

nthe

thirdeven

ingses-

sion,

paren

tswere

trained

to

model

thewor

ds

inmany

dier-

entcon

texts,using

dierentexemp

lars

toexpress

dieren

t

inten

tions

(e.g.,

reques

t,commen

t).T

heparen

tsuseo

target

wor

dswasreviewed

duringeac

heven

ingsess

ion,a

ndparents

kep

tdiarieso

thech

ildsimitat

ivean

dspon

taneouspro

duc-

tiono

thesean

dot

herwords.

Secon

d,i

nthesix

theven

ing

sess

ion,p

aren

tswere

trained

how

tose

lectad

ditional

lexical

targets.

Third

,in

the

fnaleven

ingsess

ionparen

tswere

taugh

t

toexpan

dtargetwor

ds

intot

wo-wor

dp

hrasesan

dmodel

wor

dcom

binat

ions.

(Girolam

ettoretal.,

1995

,p.4

3).

Girolamet

toetal.(

1995)


22/48

22Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Name

Description



ngInter-


Literacy

Pro-

mot

ion

Literacy

Promot

ion

invo

lvest

raining

teac

her

insevera

lareas

thatare

though

ttopromoteread

ingamongs

tch

ildren.

This

inclu

desp

hys

ical

des

igno

th

eclassroom;e

ec

tive

boo

kdis

plays;impor

tanceoread

ing

alou

dtoch

ildren;

interact

ive

techn

iques

orread

ingaloud;environmen

talprin

t;au

thor,

genre,

andcon

ten

tthemescr

eatedw

iththe

boo

kco

llec

tion;

smal

l-group

lessonsusing

tea

cher-mademater

ialbasedon

boo

ksread;emergen

twri

ting

ormatch-to-prin

toppor

tun

ities

;

andliteracyac

tivi

tyduringp

lay.

McG

ill-Franzenetal.

(1999)

Elaborat

ive

Rem

iniscing

The

Elaborat

ive

Rem

iniscing

pract

ice

isase

togu

idel

ines

or

verbal

lyinteract

ingw

ithchil

dren

thatare

basedon

thesame

techn

iquesemp

loye

dinthe

dialogicread

ing

interven

tion.

Thisinclu

des

theuseoopen

-en

dedques

tions,

ollow

ing

the

childslead,e

xpan

dingon

thech

ildsu

tterances,an

dlin

king

thepas

teven

ttoot

heraspec

tso

thech

ildsexper

ience.T

hese

pract

icesareaimed

tobeuse

deveryday.

Spec

ifc

Prac

tice

Reeseetal.(

2010)

Interact

ive

ChildCen-

tere

dInterven-

tion

Languagest

imu

lationprovidedspeechpat

holog

ist.Stimu

la-

tion

ocuse

donvoca

bu

larysizean

dtwo-

threewor

du

tter-

ances.

Interven

tion

Rober

tson

&Weismer

(1999)

Dialogic

Rea

dingw

ith

Soun

dFounda-

tions

The

dialogicread

ingcomponen

twassim

ilar

tothat

descr

ibed

earl

ier

inthistable

.The

Soun

dFoun

dat

ionsprogram

isapho

-

nem

icawarenesscurr

icu

lum.

Composi

te

Whitehurs

tetal.(1

999)

0


23/48

Synthesis of Research: Meta-analyses &DiscussionCan a curriculum-based approach to early childcare produce results better than teachingadhering to a non-specifc program? The aim o the frst set o comparisons is to addresswhether curriculum/systematic approaches to early education are associated with betterlanguage and literacy skills compared to non-systematic approaches. The results o thesestudies are summarised in Tables 4 - 9. In all o these studies, the intervention comprisesa systematic curriculum or teaching language and pre-literacy skills. The control groupcomprised o non-specifc practices devised by individual teachers. It is important to notethat these studies are evaluating a range o dierent curriculum/programs. These com-parisons do not necessarily inorm which specifc practices are best or supporting earlylanguage and literacy skills in young children. However, by treating all dierent curricu-lum/programs as being representative o a systematic approach to improving language andliteracy in young children the question we can examine is whether, overall, systematic/cur-

riculum based approach is better, the same or worse than non-systematic/non-curriculumbased approach.

Receptive Vocabulary. The frst set o results examined related to receptive vocabulary.Table 4 shows the individual eect sizes and 95% confdence interval or individual stud-ies. At the study level, while all but one study avoured a curriculum approach, the eectsizes were not signifcantly dierent rom zero. However, the average eect size com-puted using all studies was ound to be .120 (a small eect size) which was statistically sig-nifcant rom zero (p = .036). This result indicates that regardless o the intervention used,overall, a curriculum based approach will is associated with a signifcant, albeit, small in-

crease in receptive vocabulary scores.

Question 1


23


24/48

24Forsknings-rev

iew-Sprogpakken.dk

Table4.

IndividualandWeightedAveraged

EffectSizes(Cohensd)ComparingCurriculumandNon-Cur

ricu-

lumApproac

hesonImprovingReceptiveVocabularya.

Study

CurriculumEvaluated

Effect

Sizeb

StandardError

95%CondenceIntervalsfor

theEffectSize

p-value

LowerLimit

UpperLimit

PCER(2008)

BrightBeginnings

0.13

0.14

-0.14

0.40

.353

PCER(2008)

CreativeCurriculum

0.23

0.14

-0.04

0.50

.100

PCER(2008)

CreativeCurriculum

0.08

0.14

-0.19

0.35

.568

PCER(2008)

DoortoDiscovery

0.15

0.14

-0.12

0.42

.284

PCER(2008)

LetsBeginwiththeLetterPeople

-0.04

0.06

-0.16

0.08

.830

PCER(2008)

ProjectApproach

0.16

0.14

-0.11

0.43

.253

WeightedAverage

0.12

0.06

0.00

0.24

.036*

Notes:aAllstud

iesmeasuredreceptivevocabularyusingthePPVT(seeAppendixBfordescriptionofthetest;bPositivevalues

favour

curriculum,neg

ativevaluesfavournon-curriculuma

pproach;*p

Documents

Forskning s Review