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

Thank-you!

as2g@virginia.edu

29