410 likes | 598 Vues
Using Technology to Deliver Professional Development That Fosters Early Literacy Development. David K. Dickinson Boston College (Vanderbilt U. next fall) Nancy Clark-Chiarelli Center for Children & Families EDC. Session Overview. Theoretical framing Importance of early literacy
E N D
Using Technology to Deliver Professional Development That Fosters Early Literacy Development David K. Dickinson Boston College (Vanderbilt U. next fall) Nancy Clark-Chiarelli Center for Children & Families EDC
Session Overview • Theoretical framing • Importance of early literacy • Evidence of classroom effects • Need for in-service P.D. • LEEP approach and results from face-to-face Institute delivery • Technology-enhanced LEEP • Design • Demonstration • Research results • Into the future
The Importance of the Preschool Years to Long-term Literacy Success
The Achievement Gap in Reading Scores of 9 Year Old Children
A Strong Early Start is Vital • Great stability in: • reading level from K – Grade 11 • phonemic awareness during the elementary school years • Relative vocabulary levels are stable • Schools do not contribute to vocabulary growth beyond what is accounted for by age • Remediation is increasingly difficult as children get older • Age 3 - 6 ..a window of opportunity?
Children from Low-income Homes Start School Seriously Behind in Receptive Language • Four-year-old Head Start children, on average, score at levels equivalent to children age 2:10 • Many children (Even Start, ELL) begin school even farther behind
Home & School Study of Language & Literacy Development For children from low-income homes: • What interactions in homes and classrooms support language development? • What effects do such experiences during the preschool years have on long-term literacy? Method: • Visited homes & classrooms from age 3 • Audiotaped teachers and children throughout the day • Assessed language & literacy beginning in kindergarten through grade 7 Dickinson & Tabors, 2001, Beginning Literacy with Language, Brookes Publishing.
Correlations Between Kindergarten and Grade Seven Readingfrom Dickinson & Tabors, Beginning Literacy with Language, Brookes Publishing
KindergartenLiteracy SkillsRelated to Preschool Classroom Experiences
Predicting Grade 4 Reading Comprehension from Preschool Interaction Data (n = 55) • California Achievement Test: R2 = .33** • Sig. controls: none • Free play: • % teacher rare vocabulary** • Large group • % teacher attention utterances**
Professional Development Can Improve Classrooms and Enhance Children’s Learning
The Need for In-Service PD • Programs want staff to get more university-level training: • Head Start, states and NAEYC are raising educational requirements • Uneven understanding of early literacy: • College-level work on emergent literacy is new • Long-standing beliefs and folk theories about literacy lead to resistance or inappropriate practices • Access to high quality early childhood education is limited
Background • Many teachers have trouble getting access to high quality classes on language and literacy. • Emerging technologies have the potential to increase access to advanced training. • But early childhood teachers: • have limited experience with or training in use of technology • tend to prefer socially-grounded learning • may have limited confidence using technology
Literacy Environment Enrichment Project (LEEP, now STARS in Connecticut) • 3-4 credit course delivered to Head Start teams throughout New England • Teams of teachers and supervisors attend together • Course material includes reading and classes that linked theory to practice • Assignments require use of new strategies and systematic reflection • Supervisors learn content and gain supervisory skills
LEEP Institute Design • Course delivered in concentrated Institute framework (3, 2-day sessions) • Assignments prior to the initial session and between sessions • Supervisors support teachers: • apply course content in their rooms • complete assignments • Supervisors help to sustain change: • have shared vision of effective practice • provide long-term accountability • capacity to affect broader systems
Content: Early Literacy Development • Early literacy: constructive & multi-dimensional • Early writing • The nature of development • Appropriate forms of classroom support • Phonological awareness • What it is & activities to foster it • Oral language • Importance to literacy • Importance of conversations • Books and book reading • Importance of books and book reading • Guidance for reading, library area • Curriculum planning • Planning & integrating literacy
Toward Reflective, Effective Practice New Practices Guided Observation Knowledge & Beliefs Classroom Practices Conversations & Guided Reflection Course Content Reflective Effective Practices New Knowledge & Beliefs
Research Design for LEEP • Wait-list control groups • LEEP n=58 • Comparison group n=74 • Education levels: : • High school or GED: 6% • Child Development Associate degree: 22% • Associates degree: 31% • BA or MA 41% • Classroom observations • Prior to LEEP and after all assignments completed • ELLCO: Classroom Observation, Literacy Observation Checklist, Literacy Activities • Assessment Profile
Analytic Approach • Regression models controlling for key variables then determining the added contribution of LEEP vs. no LEEP • Control variables tested: • Fall score • Teacher education • Years of experience • Cohort
Amount of Added Variance Accounted for by Participation in LEEP • Controls: • Fall score on the same variable • Cohort, teacher education & experience • Classroom Observation: • Gen. Envir.: 4% (r2 = .36)** • Lang., Lit. & Curr.: 24% (r2 = .46)** • Literacy Activities Rating Scale • Full Group Books: 15% (r2 = .48)* • Writing: 19% (r2 = .60)* • Lit. Env. Checklist: 19% (r2 = .57)**
Moving From LEEP to T-LEEP • Teachers and supervisors benefit from a a rigorous in-service course focused on literacy • Changes in practice can be sustained up to 3 years later • Many teachers are in settings where high quality instruction is hard to access • Distance-learning technology is becoming affordable
T-LEEP Instructional Sites • Originating Site: University of Massachusetts Lowell • Distant Sites: Hartford, Connecticut Bridgewater, Massachusetts Newton, Massachusetts Chapel Hill, North Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina
T-LEEP Components • Class sessions: • Face-to-face professional conversations: 1hour • ITV session: 2 hours • Team planning: 1/2 hour • Assignments: • reading • practice-based applications • technology-based assignments
Instructional Videoconference • Personnel • Instructor in originating site • Facilitators in distant sites • Technical support in all sites • ITV Guiding Elements • Didactic: teach key concepts and strategies • Practice-based: videotapes, experience • Analytical: examine videotapes and practice through lens provided by theory • Build community across sites
Sample SessionSession 3: Phonological Awareness • Professional Conversation (45 min.) What can we learn from the Transcript Analysis about supporting conversations in the classsroom? • ITV Session-Part I (55 min.) • Is it Phonological Awareness or Phonics? • Video: Patrick, What is he doing? • Stump the Professor-Syllables
Session 3: Phonological Awareness • ITV Session-Part II (55 min.) • Video: Down By the Bay, Did you ever see Chidimma…? • Atlas: Levels of Support • Video: Ants-go-marching, The little one does what? • Wrap-Up (45 min.) • Going Up or Down the Staircase • Homework: P.A. log • Session 4: Professional Conversation about PA log and reflections
Analysis of T-LEEP Sessions • Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) conducted discourse analysis of sessions (see Am. Ed. Research Journal, Dec. ’04). • Qualities of instructor-student discourse that contribute to effective learning examined. • Analysis of Adult Classroom Environment Scale (ACES) • T-LEEP participants rated classroom learning environment equally or more positive on four dimensions: Affiliation, Teacher Support, Personal Goal Attainment, and Organization & Clarity.
T-LEEP Research Design for Classroom and Child Outcomes • Quasi-experimental Design with pre- and post-tests • T-LEEP teachers n=25 • Comparison group teachers n=34 • T-LEEP children n=195 • Comparison group children n=217 • Measures • Teacher Technology Survey • ELLCO • PPVT-III (Receptive Vocabulary) • EPAP (Phonological Awareness) • ELP (Emergent Literacy) • TROLL (Teacher Rating of Oral Language & Literacy) • Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS- FACES version)
Analytic Approach • Ordinary-least-squares regression analyses were conducted on teacher spring outcomes, controlling for fall scores. • Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the hypothesis that children in T-LEEP classrooms demonstrate stronger language and literacy skills.
Classroom Outcomes • Participation in T-LEEP predicts higher post-intervention scores on every measure of the ELLCO • T-LEEP participation explains 72% of variation in spring scores on the Writing Subscale • A moderate amount of variation on other subscales (11% to 53%) • Effect sizes were large: from .58 to 1.34
Classroom Outcome Data *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 ****p<.0001 R2 = the proportion of variance in spring scores accounted for by participation in T-LEEP
Child Outcomes • Teacher participation in T-LEEP has a positive impact on children’s language and literacy. • Participation in T-LEEP predicted nearly one-half (42%) of the between-class variation in children’s receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III).
Child Outcomes • T-LEEP participation is associated with higher scores in phonological awareness (EPAP) and emergent literacy (ELP). • Teacher participation in T-LEEP explains 16% of between-class variation in spring EPAP and 15% in spring ELP.
Hierarchical Linear Models: Participation in T-LEEP Predicting Spring Language and Literacy Skills
Teacher Ratings of Children’s Language and Literacy (TROLL) • Amount of between-class variance associated with T-LEEP participation: • Writing skills: 33% • Reading skills: 22% • Language development: 15%
Teacher Ratings of Children’s Social Skills • Amount of between-class variance associated with T-LEEP participation: • Problem behaviors: 22% • Social skills: 17%
Future Directions • Replication study of LEEP and T-LEEP in a broader context throughout W. Virginia with I.E.S. funding. • On-line version of LEEP pilot tested and available. • Continued partnerships with higher education. • Examine effectiveness when PD is combined with a strong curriculum (Opening the World of Learning, Schickedanz & Dickinson).
Sources • Zaslow, M. & Martinez-Beck (Ed.) (in press). Critical issues in early childhood professional development. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. • June conference on PD in Honolulu sponsored by PREL (PREL.Org) • For LEEP-related courses: Center for Children & Families: EDC • For science-rich preschool curriculum (OWL) linked to PD: David Dickinson, Vanderbilt University