Enhancing Communication and Academic Achievement in Low-Income Kindergartners


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Does not meet expectations (ie , <50%ile)
  • Effect size=.01
  • Effect size =.05
  • Effect size=.02
  • Effect size=.05
  • Effect size=.06
  • Effect size=.02
  • Effect sizes: Vocab .04 Sentences .07 Adj. .04 Quote .02
  • Effect Sizes: Course grades=.14 Readiness test = .13
  • Enhancing Communication and Academic Achievement in Low-Income Kindergartners

    1. 1. Enhancing Communication and Academic Achievement in Low-Income Kindergartners Ann Cale Kruger, Audrey Ambrosino, & Lynda Kapsch Georgia State University
    2. 2. Previous Research on Georgia Wolf Trap <ul><li>Quasi-experimental </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-intervention /post-intervention designs </li></ul><ul><li>Significant benefits in Communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Mind </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotion Understanding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Writing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Effects especially noted in low-income children </li></ul><ul><li>Effects not the targets of the intervention </li></ul>
    3. 3. DOE Study <ul><li>Three-year experimental design </li></ul><ul><li>Random assignment with waiting controls </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-intervention/Post-intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Kindergarten students </li></ul><ul><li>Years 1, 2, & 3 combined </li></ul><ul><ul><li>542 students (51% male) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>93% African American </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>71% qualified for free (  130% poverty level) or reduced-cost lunch (130-185%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2008 federal poverty level for a family of 4 is $21,200 </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Data Sources intervention intervention X control intervention Year 2 intervention intervention S X intervention B control X T X X H intervention control G Year 3 Year 1 School
    5. 5. Control Data <ul><li>Research in applied settings requires dealing with noise </li></ul><ul><li>School T as the source of control data is conservative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compared to other control schools, pretest scores at T were the highest for several variables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>T was at the median of all schools in 1st grade performance on standardized tests in 2008; H ranked the lowest and G the highest </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Final Subject Pool for Three Year Analysis <ul><li>Low-income students only (eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch) </li></ul><ul><li>281 students (52% males) </li></ul><ul><li>93% African American </li></ul>
    7. 7. Hypotheses <ul><li>Intervention students will show more improvement than control students in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Language Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Academic Achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Each child serves as their own control using analyses of covariance </li></ul>
    8. 8. Data Currently Available for all Three Years <ul><li>Language Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PPVT (receptive vocabulary) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TOLD-P:3 subtests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Oral Vocabulary (semantics) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Grammatic Understanding (syntax) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sentence Imitation (syntax) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Starting Point for the Sample
    10. 10. Vocabulary PPVT Standard Scores
    11. 11. Grammatic Understanding TOLD Standard Scores
    12. 12. Sentence Imitation TOLD Standard Scores
    13. 13. Another View of the Data <ul><li>Three Years at School G </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From Control School to Two Years of Intervention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes all income levels </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Three Years at School G: Vocabulary PPVT Raw Scores
    15. 15. Follow-up on Year 1 Cohort <ul><li>Academic Achievement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Report Card Grades </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardized Test Scores (CRCT) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All income levels </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Compared to controls, Year 1 intervention children </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Had significantly higher report card grades Year 2 (their 1st grade year) and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Had significantly higher language arts standardized tests scores Year 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All without further intervention </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Year 1 Follow-up: Long-Term Effect on All Course Grades
    17. 17. Year 1 Follow-up: Long-Term Effect on Achievement in Language Arts
    18. 18. Data Still Being Collected <ul><li>Story Writing </li></ul><ul><li>Academic Achievement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Report Card Grades </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Georgia Kindergarten Achievement Test </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardized Test Scores (CRCT) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Year 2 data is only relevant data on hand for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Story Writing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Special Needs Students </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Preliminary Analyses Year 2 Story Writing <ul><li>Compared to control students, intervention students had significantly greater pre-post improvement in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expressive Vocabulary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of Sentences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of Adjectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of “Quotes” from Characters </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Preliminary Analyses -Year 2 Kindergarten Special Needs <ul><li>Compared to control students with special needs, intervention students with special needs had </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significantly higher course grades in Kindergarten </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significantly higher Kindergarten achievement test scores (the state mandated test of first grade readiness). </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Recap <ul><li>Major Findings of the Study to Date </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Language Development-Three Year Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Significant improvement in semantics and syntax </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Academic Achievement - Followup on Year 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Significant improvements for all Year 1 intervention students one year later </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Language arts standardized tests </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Report card grades </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Without further intervention </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Contributions <ul><li>Not a revolution, but a reminder: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developmental appropriateness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encouraging children to find their voice: child-centered education supports symbolic development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authentic, meaningful activity in a language rich and emotionally engaging context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usefulness of this approach for development and learning </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Contact Information <ul><li>Ann Cale Kruger, Georgia State University </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>