Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findingsinclusioninstitute.fpg.unc.edu ›...
Transcript of Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findingsinclusioninstitute.fpg.unc.edu ›...
-
Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findings
Doré LaForett, Ph.D., Virginia Buysse, Ph.D., Ellen Peisner-Feinberg, Ph.D. May 14,2013 2013 National Early Childhood Inclusion Institute Chapel Hill, NC
-
Objectives Provide an overview of research on
R&R
Describe the R&R-DLL model
Share preliminary research findings from RCT study funded by the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation
-
R&R Key Components
o Recognition: Formative assessment (universal screening for all children & progress monitoring for some)
o Response: Core instruction for all children; Targeted interventions for some children
o PD & ongoing supports for implementation & data-based decision making
-
Tier 1
All Children
Research-Based Core Curriculum &
Intentional Teaching
Formative Assessment
Tier 3
A Few
Children Individualized
Scaffolding Strategies
Formative Assessment
Tier 2
Some Children Explicit Small Group Interventions &
Embedded Learning Activities
Formative Assessment
-
What is the research
evidence for R&R ?
-
Sample Study 1:
• 24 classrooms (FL & MD)
• 320 4-year-olds/95 target children
Study 2:
• 24 classrooms (NC)
• 354 4-year-olds/115 target children
-
Program Characteristics
Study 1: • Community-based settings
• 75% of teachers BA or higher
Study 2: • Public school-based settings • 100% of teachers BA or higher
-
Child Characteristics Study 1: • 47% girls; 68% White, 24% African-
American, & 8% other; 51% Latino
• 47% received subsidy
Study 2:
• 42% girls; 24% White, 42% African-American, & 12% other; 33% Latino
• 100% received subsidy
-
Study 1 mCLASS:CIRCLE Vocabulary (ES=0.40)
13.5
18.518.7
21.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets(n=95)Classmates(n=225)
Mea
n S
core
-
Study 1 mCLASS:CIRCLE Sound Awareness (ES=0.50)
Mea
n S
core
17.2
30.224.2
35.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets (n=115)
Comparison(n=243)
-
Study 1 TOPEL Print Knowledge (ES=0.61)
92.4
101.7103.8
109.7
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets (n=85)
Comparison (n=91)
Mea
n S
core
-
Study 2 mCLASS:CIRCLE Vocabulary (ES=0.41)
9.2
15.8
16.1
20.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets (n=115)
Comparison(n=243)
Mea
n S
core
-
Study 2 mCLASS:CIRCLE Sound Awareness
11.4
27.416.9
31.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets (n=115)
Mea
n S
core
-
Study 2 PPVT-4 Receptive Language (ES=0.55)
72.8
84.089.4
95.6
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets (n=114)
Comparison(n=240)
Mea
n S
core
-
Study 2 EVT-2 Expressive Language (ES=0.74)
70.3
84.191.0
96.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Pretest Posttest
Targets
Comparison
Mea
n S
core
-
Child Outcomes
Similar gains for target & comparison children on several measures
• Study 1: mCLASS:CIRCLE letters, PPVT-IV receptive language, TOPEL phonological awareness
• Study 2: mCLASS:CIRCLE letters, TOPEL phonological awareness & print knowledge
-
Conclusions from Research on R&R
Both studies found positive effects of R&R intervention for young children who are struggling to learn, some of whom were DLLs
However, these studies were not designed to address the unique assessment & instruction needs of DLLs
-
Conclusions from Research on DLLs
Need valid methods for determining a child’s language status & measuring skill development in L1 & L2
Need effective educational interventions for DLLs that support development in L1 & L2 & are matched to unique learning characteristics/goals
Consider wide variety of contexts and settings in which early education practices for DLLs are used
-
Rationale for R&R-DLL Based on the literature, there is little evidence for the efficacy of any particular educational program or intervention for DLLs in pre-k
R&R offered a useful framework for linking assessment to instruction, but did not include accommodations for DLLs.
Formative assessment & tiered instruction components of R&R needed to take into account skills in both L1 & L2
-
R&R-DLL Adaptations
Parallel assessments: Formative assessment in English & Spanish
Specific instructional supports to promote L1 & L2 development
-
Implementation of R&R-DLL Formative Assessment
Teachers gathered formative assessment data on all children
Formative assessment measure: C-PALLS+ (Letter Naming, Vocabulary, Phonological Awareness)
Assessments conducted in English & Spanish (separate sessions)
Assessment schedule: fall, winter, spring
-
Formative Assessment
-
Implementation of Instruction within R&R-DLL
Classrooms continued to use their core curricula
Tier 1 – dialogic reading with DLL instructional support strategies (all children)
Tier 2 – bilingual small group lessons (target children)
-
R&R-DLL Instructional Support Strategies
o Bridging: Incorporating the home language o Dual language instruction o Meta-linguistic strategies
o Visual & contextual cueing
-
Tiered Instruction: Small Group Lessons
-
R&R-DLL Research Questions
Do children make greater gains in language & literacy skills in intervention classrooms than control classrooms?
Are gains greatest for target children in intervention classrooms?
-
R&R-DLL Study: Sample
RCT design with assignment at classroom level (16 intervention, 8 control)
318 4-year-old, Spanish-speaking DLL children
Community-based & public school pre-k sites in Miami-Dade County, FL
-
R&R-DLL Study: Evaluation Measures
Child Outcomes: R/EOWPVT, WJ-III/Batería Letter-Word ID, Rhyming (conducted in English & Spanish)
Classroom Observations: ELLCO, dialogic reading, DLL strategies
Family & Teacher Information Forms
-
R&R-DLL Study: Formative Assessment Language Profiles
Used for selecting children to participate in Tier 2 interventions
Low English, low Spanish Low English, high Spanish High English, low Spanish High English, high Spanish
-
Classroom: mCLASS Vocabulary (d = .16)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Fall English Vocab Winter English Vocab
ControlClassrooms
InterventionClassrooms
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
-
Classroom: mCLASS Phonological Awareness (d = .35, .50)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fall Spanish PA Spring Spanish PA
ControlClassrooms
InterventionClassrooms
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fall English PA Spring English PA
-
Classroom: mCLASS Letter Naming (d = .28)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fall Spanish Letters Spring Spanish Letters
ControlClassrooms
InterventionClassrooms
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
-
Target: mCLASS Letter Naming (d = .36)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Fall English Letters Spring English Letters
Control Target
Intervention Target
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
-
Target: mCLASS Phonological Awareness (d = .53, .74)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fall Spanish PA Spring Spanish PA
ControlTarget
InterventionTarget
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fall English PA Spring English PA
-
Target: EOWPVT Expressive Vocabulary raw score (d = .30 )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fall English Expressive Vocab Spring English Expressive Vocab
Control Target
Intervention Target
Indicates statistically significant greater gains for intervention group compared with control group
-
R&R-DLL Study: Summary of Key Findings
Effects for English Expressive Vocabulary (All, Targets) Phonological Awareness (All, Targets) Letters (Targets)
Effects for Spanish Phonological Awareness (All, Targets) Letters (All)
-
R&R-DLL: Next Steps
• What questions still need to be addressed related to tiered instruction for DLLs?
• How transportable is this model for serving DLLs in other settings?
• How feasible would it be to take the R&R-DLL model to scale?
-
R&R Website
For more information on R&R, visit randr.fpg.unc.edu