Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findings · R&R-DLL Study: Sample RCT design with assignment...

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


Tier 2

Some Children Explicit Small Group Interventions &

Embedded Learning Activities


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

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



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



Target: mCLASS Letter Naming (d = .36)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fall English Letters Spring English Letters

Control Target

Intervention Target


Target: mCLASS Phonological Awareness (d = .53, .74)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fall Spanish PA Spring Spanish PA

ControlTarget

InterventionTarget


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


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

Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findings · R&R-DLL Study: Sample RCT design with assignment...

Documents

Transcript of Recognition & Response for DLLs: Key Findings · R&R-DLL Study: Sample RCT design with assignment...