Enhancing Communication and Academic Achievement in Low-Income Kindergartners

Enhancing Communication Enhancing Communication and Academic Achievement and Academic Achievement

in Low-Income in Low-Income KindergartnersKindergartners

Ann Cale Kruger, Audrey Ambrosino, Ann Cale Kruger, Audrey Ambrosino, & Lynda Kapsch& Lynda Kapsch

Georgia State UniversityGeorgia State University

Previous Research on Previous Research on Georgia Wolf TrapGeorgia Wolf Trap

Quasi-experimental Quasi-experimental Pre-intervention /post-intervention Pre-intervention /post-intervention

designsdesigns Significant benefits in CommunicationSignificant benefits in Communication

Theory of MindTheory of Mind Emotion UnderstandingEmotion Understanding WritingWriting

Effects especially noted in low-income Effects especially noted in low-income childrenchildren

Effects not the targets of the interventionEffects not the targets of the intervention

DOE StudyDOE Study Three-year experimental designThree-year experimental design Random assignment with waiting controlsRandom assignment with waiting controls Pre-intervention/Post-interventionPre-intervention/Post-intervention Kindergarten studentsKindergarten students Years 1, 2, & 3 combinedYears 1, 2, & 3 combined

542 students (51% male) 93% African American 71% qualified for free ( 130% poverty level)

or reduced-cost lunch (130-185%) 2008 federal poverty level for a family of 4 is $21,200

Data SourcesData Sources

SchoolSchool Year 1Year 1 Year 2Year 2 Year 3Year 3

GG controlcontrol interventiinterventionon

interventionintervention

HH XX controlcontrol XX

TT XX XX controlcontrol

BB interventiointerventionn

interventiinterventionon

XX

SS interventiointerventionn

interventiinterventionon

intervention intervention

Control DataControl Data

Research in applied settings requires Research in applied settings requires dealing with noise dealing with noise

School T as the source of control data School T as the source of control data is conservativeis conservative Compared to other control schools, Compared to other control schools,

pretest scores at T were the highest for pretest scores at T were the highest for several variablesseveral variables

T was at the median of T was at the median of allall schools in 1st schools in 1st grade performance on standardized tests grade performance on standardized tests in 2008; H ranked the lowest and G the in 2008; H ranked the lowest and G the highesthighest

Final Subject Pool for Final Subject Pool for Three Year AnalysisThree Year Analysis

Low-income students only (eligible Low-income students only (eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch)for free or reduced-cost lunch)

281 students (52% males)281 students (52% males) 93% African American93% African American

HypothesesHypotheses

Intervention students will show more improvement than control students in

Language Development Academic Achievement

Each child serves as their own control using analyses of covariance

Data Currently Available Data Currently Available for all Three Yearsfor all Three Years

Language DevelopmentLanguage Development PPVT (receptive vocabulary)PPVT (receptive vocabulary) TOLD-P:3 subtestsTOLD-P:3 subtests

Oral Vocabulary (semantics)Oral Vocabulary (semantics) Grammatic Understanding (syntax)Grammatic Understanding (syntax) Sentence Imitation (syntax)Sentence Imitation (syntax)

Starting Point for Starting Point for the Samplethe Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pretest Percentile Rank

PPVT

Oral Vocabulary

GrammaticUnderstandingSentence Imitation

Vocabulary Vocabulary PPVT Standard ScoresPPVT Standard Scores

85

90

Pre Post

ControlIntervention

Grammatic Grammatic UnderstandingUnderstanding

TOLD Standard ScoresTOLD Standard Scores

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

Pre Post

ControlIntervention

Sentence ImitationSentence ImitationTOLD Standard ScoresTOLD Standard Scores

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Pre Post

ControlIntervention

Another View of the DataAnother View of the Data

Three Years at School G Three Years at School G From Control School to Two Years of From Control School to Two Years of

InterventionIntervention Includes all income levelsIncludes all income levels

Three Years at School G: Three Years at School G: Vocabulary Vocabulary

PPVT Raw ScoresPPVT Raw Scores

65

70

75

Pre Post

Control Year

1st Intervention Year

2nd Intervention Year

Follow-up on Year 1 Follow-up on Year 1 CohortCohort

Academic Achievement Academic Achievement Report Card GradesReport Card Grades Standardized Test Scores (CRCT)Standardized Test Scores (CRCT) All income levelsAll income levels

Compared to controls, Year 1 intervention Compared to controls, Year 1 intervention childrenchildren Had significantly higher report card grades Year 2 Had significantly higher report card grades Year 2

(their 1st grade year) and(their 1st grade year) and Had significantly higher language arts Had significantly higher language arts

standardized tests scores Year 2standardized tests scores Year 2 All without further interventionAll without further intervention

Year 1 Follow-up:Year 1 Follow-up:Long-Term Effect Long-Term Effect onon All All

Course GradesCourse Grades

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Control Intervention

Mean of Course Grades in First Grade

Year 1 Follow-up: Year 1 Follow-up: Long-Term Effect on Long-Term Effect on

AchievementAchievement in Language in Language ArtsArts

800

810

820

830

840

850

Control Intervention

Standardized Test Scores in First Grade

Data Still Being Data Still Being CollectedCollected

Story Writing Story Writing Academic Achievement Academic Achievement

Report Card GradesReport Card Grades Georgia Kindergarten Achievement TestGeorgia Kindergarten Achievement Test Standardized Test Scores (CRCT)Standardized Test Scores (CRCT)

Year 2 data is only relevant data on hand Year 2 data is only relevant data on hand forfor Story Writing Story Writing Special Needs StudentsSpecial Needs Students

Preliminary Analyses Preliminary Analyses Year 2 Story WritingYear 2 Story Writing

Compared to control students, intervention students had significantly greater pre-post improvement in Expressive Vocabulary Number of Sentences Number of Adjectives Number of “Quotes” from Characters

Preliminary Analyses -Preliminary Analyses -Year 2 Kindergarten Year 2 Kindergarten

Special NeedsSpecial Needs Compared to control students with

special needs, intervention students with special needs had Significantly higher course grades in

Kindergarten Significantly higher Kindergarten

achievement test scores (the state mandated test of first grade readiness).

RecapRecap Major Findings of the Study to DateMajor Findings of the Study to Date

Language Development-Three Year AnalysisLanguage Development-Three Year Analysis Significant improvement in semantics and Significant improvement in semantics and

syntaxsyntax Academic Achievement - Followup on Year 1Academic Achievement - Followup on Year 1

Significant improvements for all Year 1 Significant improvements for all Year 1 intervention students one year later intervention students one year later

Language arts standardized tests Language arts standardized tests Report card grades Report card grades Without further interventionWithout further intervention

ContributionsContributions

Not a revolution, but a reminder:Not a revolution, but a reminder: Developmental appropriateness Developmental appropriateness Encouraging children to find their voice: Encouraging children to find their voice:

child-centered education supports child-centered education supports symbolic developmentsymbolic development

Authentic, meaningful activity in a Authentic, meaningful activity in a language rich and emotionally engaging language rich and emotionally engaging contextcontext

Usefulness of this approach for Usefulness of this approach for development development and and learninglearning

Contact InformationContact Information

Ann Cale Kruger, Georgia State Ann Cale Kruger, Georgia State UniversityUniversity

[email protected]@gsu.edu