Let's Pretend An Intervention to Enhance Language Development in LowIncome Kindergartners Ann Cale K

1
Let's PretendAn Intervention to Enhance
Language Development in Low-Income
KindergartnersAnn Cale KrugerEducational
Psychology and Special Education
2

• The Georgia Wolf Trap Project
• A collaboration of the Alliance Theatre, Fulton
  County Schools, and Georgia State University
• Funded for three years (2005-2008) by the U.S.
  Department of Education, Arts Education Model
  Development and Dissemination Program

3

• Acknowledgements
• Students, Classroom Teachers, Teaching Artists,
  Administrators
• Jackie Gray, Carol Jones, Michele Mummert, Denise
  Jennings
• Audrey Ambrosino, Lynda Kapsch, Heather Smith,
  Nicole Lorenzetti, Carol Ashong, Brook Bays,
  Josephine Lindsley, Callie Reeves, Daniel Medina,
  Kareema Spells, Peter Samuelson, Elizabeth
  McGarragh, Macy Strickland, Lisa Quick
• Educational Psychology and Special Education

4
Context of the Intervention

• The achievement gap begins before the childs
  first day of school.
• Language development in early childhood predicts
  school performance
• Low-income children begin Kindergarten with less
  than half the vocabulary of high-income students,
  leading to challenges in literacy development
• In high-stakes, underachieving schools,
  Kindergarten often does not resemble
  child-centered early education

5
Nature of the Intervention

• Theoretical orientation shared understanding and
  intentions are sociocognitive processes
  underlying cultural learning
• Social and communicative experiences that support
  the development of symbolic functioning are
  essential in early childhood
• Pretend play, the developmental foundation of
  drama, is the childs first language.
• Joint pretense and story sharing can unpack
  language. Drama engages childrens emotions and
  intellect, transcending culture and class.

6
Design and Implementation

• Random assignment of low-income schools to
  conditions (with waiting controls)
  pre-intervention/post-intervention
• Kindergarten classrooms - see DVD
• Professional learning opportunities for teachers
  in the summer and fall artists and teachers
  collaboratively infuse drama into 13 language
  arts lessons in January and February
• Three years, almost 70 residencies, over 1200
  students, approximately 16,000 contact hours of
  instruction
• Anticipated multiplicative benefit

7
Sample Characteristics

• Years 1, 2, 3 combined
• N 545 (control217, intervention328) 51 males
• 36 special needs (remedial ed, special ed or
  both)
• 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
• 94 African American
• Only significant group difference Control 90
  AA Intervention96

8
Starting Point for the Sample
9
Data Sources
10
Data Collected (Pre and Post)
11
Hypotheses

• Intervention students will show more improvement
  than control students in
• Language Development
• Writing (near transfer)
• Academic Achievement (far transfer)
• Each child serves as own control using analyses
  of covariance

12
Language Development

• Over the Kindergarten Year
• PPVT (receptive vocabulary)
• TOLD-P3 subtests
• Oral Vocabulary (semantics)
• Grammatic Understanding (syntax)
• Sentence Imitation (syntax)
• Most challenging to describe when 3 years
  combined

13
Grammatic UnderstandingTOLD Percentiles
14
Writing

• Story starters
• On my way to school today I saw a magic bird..
• On my way to school today I saw a singing
  tree.
• Administered in small groups by a researcher
  during Years 2 and 3
• Drawing with dictation or writing (with invented
  spelling) or some combination. A meaningful
  activity for the students.
• Grounded inquiry led to coding categories.
  Excellent reliability. (condition was obscured.)
• Quantitative Codes words, word types, sentences,
  characters, voicing, perspectives

15
Vocabulary
Mean Number Per Story
16
Sentences
Mean Number Per Story
17
Qualitative Coding Categories

• Character Continuity
• The child mentions or implies the main character.
• Schema
• The child writes about a typical routine during
  their day. The magic bird got on the school
  bus.
• Theme
• The child writes about a reciprocal relationship,
  a conflict, or a goal. The magical bird followed
  me home. I shared my snack with her.
• Structure
• The story starter is the beginning the child
  supplies a middle and an end. For example, It
  was ignoring me. is an action. It was ignoring
  me. It flew away. has an ending.
• Resolution
• The child creates an ending that completes the
  story theme. For example, The magic bird flew
  away. might be a story ending. However, The
  magic bird flew away. I felt sad. represents a
  conclusion to the theme.

18
Pretest On my way to school today, I saw a magic
bird

• I came to play with Spiderman.
• The brat doll had braces.
• The magic bird was green. (Character Continuity)
• The magic bird went to go to the gas station.
  (Schema)
• I am trying to get my wand back from the magic
  bird. (Theme)
• The bird was magic. Those are birdies looking for
  food. The magic bird gave them food. (Theme and
  Structure).

19
Posttest On my way to school today, I saw a
singing tree

• The pig is in the mud.
• When I came out of my house, I saw a singing
  tree. My dog came out, too, and we all danced.
  (Theme)
• I dont like singing trees. They always hurt my
  ears. The squirrel doesnt like the tree singing.
  The squirrel threw an acorn in his mouth and was
  shaking his tail at him. Then the tree went in
  the water. He didnt know that there was a shark
  beneath him. The shark ate him up. (Theme and
  Structure and Resolution)
• I am walking in the woods. The sad tree is
  singing a sad song. I am going to see him crying.
  He is sad because he has no friends. All his
  friends moved. He is sad while it is morning.
  (Theme and Structure and Resolution)

20
Writing Quality
Percentage of Students with Improvement over Time
21
Academic Achievement

• Kindergarten - GKAP and grades-NS
• All analyses of follow-up in 1st grade and 2nd
  grade were conducted controlling for Pretest
  Kindergarten PPVT
• These analyses test for an effect one to two
  years later WITHOUT further intervention

22
Report Card GradesFirst Grade (Cohorts 1 2)
23
Language Arts CRCTFirst Grade (Cohorts 1 2)
24
Report Card GradesSecond Grade (Cohort 1 only)
25
Special Needs Sample
26
Report Card GradesFirst Grade (Cohorts 1 2)
Special Needs Only
27
CRCT Language ArtsFirst Grade (Cohorts 1 2)
Special Needs Only
28
CRCT ReadingFirst Grade (Cohort 1 2) Special
Needs Only
29
CRCT MathematicsFirst Grade (Cohort 1 2)
Special Needs Only
30
Recap

• Intervention Effect on Language Development
• Significant improvement in syntax
• Intervention Effect on Writing
• Significant improvement in vocabulary and style
• Intervention Effects on Academic Achievement
• First Grade Language Arts CRCT and Grades
• Second Grade Grades
• Special Needs First Grade Grades and all three
  CRCT measures

31
Contributions

• Not a revolution, but a reminder
• Developmental appropriateness
• Encouraging children to find their voice-
  child-centered education supports symbolic
  development
• Authentic, meaningful activity in a language-rich
  and emotionally engaging context
• Usefulness of this approach for development and
  learning

32
Whats Next?

• Analyses of contributions of development (syntax)
  and learning (writing) to language arts
  achievement over time
• Analysis of teacher experience in the program on
  changes in student development and learning
• GWTELL (US DOE 2008-2012)