|Project: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER)|
|Doors to Discovery, Lets Begin with the Letter People||Assel, M.A., Landry, S.H., Swank, P.R., & Gunnewig, S. (2007). An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 20, 463-494.|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||Cosgrove, M., Fountain, C., Wehry, S., Wood, J., & Kasten, Katherine. (2006, April). Randomized Field Trial of an Early Literacy Curriculum and Instructional Support System. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.|
|Wehry, S., Cosgrove, M., & Fountain, C. (2006) Preschool-to-Kindergarten: A Longitudinal Study of the Effectiveness of the Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM). Poster.|
|Language-Focused Curriculum||Pence, K.L., Beckman, A.R., Justice, L.M., & Bowles, R.P. (in press). Preschoolers Exposure to Language Stimulation in Classrooms Serving At-Risk Children: The Contribution of Group Size and Activity Context. Early Education and Development.|
|Justice, L.M., Pence, K., Bowles, R.B., & Wiggins, Alice. (2006). An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 374-389.|
|Massey, S.L., Pence, K.L., & Justice, L.M. (2008). Educators' Use of Cognitively Challenging Questions in Economically Disadvantaged Preschool Classroom Contexts. Early Education and Development, 19 (2), 340-360.|
|Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K.L. & Wiggins, Alice. (2008). Experimental Evaluation of a Preschool Language Curriculum: Influence on Children's Expressive Language Skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol.51, 983-1001 .|
|Pence, K.L., Justice, L.M., & Wiggins, A. K. (in press). Preschool Teachers' Fidelity in Implementing a Comprehensive Language-Rich Curriculum. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.|
|Justice, L. M., Cottone, E. A., Mashburn, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Relationships Between Teachers and Preschoolers Who Are At Risk: Contribution of Childrens Language Skills, Temperamentally-based Attributes, and Gender. University of Virginia. Unpublished manuscript.|
|Rudasill, K.M., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Justice, L.M., & Pence, K. (2006). Temperament and language skills as predictors of teacherchild relationship quality in preschool. Early Education and Development, 17 (2), 271-291.|
|Literacy Express||Lonigan, C.J. (2006, July). Impact of Preschool Literacy Curricula: Results of a Randomized Evaluation in a Public Prekindergarten Program. Paper presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.|
|Lonigan, C.J., Farver, J.M., Clancy-Menchetti, J. & Phillips, B.M. (2005, June). Promoting the Development of Preschool Children's Emergent Literacy Skills: A Randomized Evaluation of a Literacy-Focused Curriculum and Two Professional Development Models. Paper presented at the 12th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.|
|Building Language for Literacy||Ramey, C.T., Ramey, S.L., and Stokes, B.R. (2008). Effective Pre-K Programs: Research Evidence About Program Dosage and Student Achievement. Unpublished manuscript. Georgetown University.|
|Ramey, S.L. & Ramey, C.T. (2008). Establishing a science of professional development for early education programs: The knowledge application information systems theory of professional development. In L.M. Justice and C. Vukelich (Eds.). Achieving excellence in preschool literacy instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.|
|Ramey, S.L., Ramey, C.T., Kleinman, B.E., Lee L.M., Farnetti, C.C., Timraz, N.M. et al (2008). The Effects of Curriculum and Coaching Supports on Classrooms and Literacy Skills of Prekindergarten/ Head Start students in Montgomery County Public Schools. Unpublished manuscript. Georgetown.|
|Project Approach||Powell, D.R., Burchinal, M.R., File, N., & Kontos, S. (2008). An eco-behavioral analysis of children's engagement in urban public school preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 108-123.|
|Pre-K Mathematics||Starkey, P., Klein, A., Clements, D., Sarama, J., Iyer, R. Effects of a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention: A randomized experiment. Journal for Research on Educational Effectiveness, in press.|
|Interagency School Readiness Consortium (ISRC)|
|Head Start REDI||Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R.L., Gest, S.D., Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., Blair, C., Nelson, K.E. & Gill, D. (in press). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development.|
|Bierman, K.L., Nix, R.L., Greenberg, M.T., Blair, C. & Domitrovich, C.E. (2007). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI Program. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 821-843.|
|Bierman, K., Nix, R. & Domitrovich, C. Beyond "What Works": Using RCTs to Illuminate Mechanisms of Change as well as to Assess Outcomes. Penn State University. Power point slides.|
|Chicago School Readiness||Raver, C.C., Jones, S.M., LiGrining, C.P., & Metzger, M. (2008). Improving Preschool Classroom Processes: Preliminary Findings From a Randomized Trial Implemented in Head Start Settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.|
|Raver, C.C., Jones, S.M., Metzger, M., Li-Grining, C., Smallwood, K., Jones, D., Smith-Donald, R., Sardin-Adjei, L., & Solomon, B. Early Lessons Learned: Preliminary findings from CSRP. Powerpoint. No date provided.|
|Li-Grining, C.P., Madison-Boyd, S., Jones, D., Smallwood, K.M., Sardin, L., Metzger, M.W., Jones, S.M., & Raver, C.C. Implementing a Classroom-Based Intervention in the "Real World": The Role of Teachers' Psychosocial Stressors. Powerpoint. No date provided.|
|Children's School Success||Odom, S.L., Butera, E.H., Schneider, R., Lieber, J., Sarpatwari, S., Horn, E., Palmer, S., Goodman-Jensen, G., Diamond, K., Czaja, C., Hanson, M., & Ceja, M. (2007, April). Children's School Success: Child outcomes from three years of research. Paper presented at CEC. Louisville, KY.|
|Lieber, J., Goodman-Jansen, G., Horn, E., Palmer, S., Manson, M., Czaja, C., Butera, G., Daniels, J., & Odom, S. (2007, April). Factors that Influence the Implementation of a New Curriculum: Results from Two Years of Implementation. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.|
|Odom, S.L., Diamond, K., Hanson, M., Lieber, J., Butera, G., Horn, E., et al (2007). Childrens School Success: Treatment dosage and child outcomes. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.|
|Getting Ready||Sheridan, S.M., Marvin, C.A., & Knoche, L.L., & Edwards, C.P. (in press). Getting Ready: Promoting School Readiness through a Relationship-based Partnership Model. Early Childhood Services.|
|Knoche, L.L., Woods, K.E., & Sheridan, S.M. Adolescent Parents' Participation in Learning: Factors Contributing to their Children's Development. Manuscript submitted for publication.|
|Sheridan, S.M., Knoche, L.L., & Marvin, C.A. (2008). Competent families, competent children: Family-based interventions to promote social competence in young children. In W.H. Brown, S.L. Odom, & S.R. McConnell (Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and intervention (2nd ed., pp.301-320). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.|
|Woods, K.E., Knoche, L.L., Rasmussen, K., & Sheridan, S.M. (2007). Adolescent Parents Adolescent Parents Participation in Learning: Participation in Learning: Factors Contributing to Factors Contributing to Childrens Development. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists. Annual Conference.|
|Sheridan, S.M., Edwards, C.P., Knoche, L.L., Cline, K.D., & Bovaird, J.A. (2007 March). Getting Ready: The Effects of Parent Engagement on School Readiness of Low-Income Children. Poster. Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development. Boston, MA.|
|Knoche, L.L., Givens, J.E., & Sheridan, S.M. (2007). Risk and Protective Factors for Children of Adolescents: Maternal Depression and Parental Sense of Competence. Journal of Child and Family Studies.|
|Sheridan, S.M., Clarke, B.L., Knoche, L.L., & Edwards, C.P. (2006). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in early childhood settings. Early Education and Development, 17 (4), 593-617.|
|Knoche, L.L., Sheridan, S.M., Cline, K., Givens, J.A. & Fleissner, S. (2006, June). Moderating the Effects of Risk on Children's School Readiness: What Are the Roles of Family Literacy and Parent Sense of Competence? Poster session presented at the annual National Research Conference of Head Start, Washington, DC.|
|Sheridan, S.M., Burt, J.D., Clarke, B.L., Taylor, A.M., & Knoche, L.L. Conjoint Behavioral Consultation: The Effects of a Family-School Partnership for Enhancing Positive Development in Early Childhood. Poster. No date given.|
|Sheridan, S.M., Edwards, C.P., & Knoche, L.L. Lessons Learned About Professional Development: Parent Engagement and Child Learning Birth to Five. Powerpoint slides. No date given.|
|LA: ExCELS (Los Angeles: Exploring Children's Early Learning Settings)||Fuligni, A. S. (2008, May). School Readiness of English-Speaking and English-Learning Children: Links with Experiences in Early Learning Settings. Power point slides.|
|Howes, C. (2008 April). Diverse Pathways in Early Childhood Professional Development: An Exploration of Early Educators in Public Schools, Private Preschools, and Family Child Care Homes. Manuscript.|
|Fuligini, A.S. (2007 May). Learning Experiences in Preschool Programs for Low-Income Children: How Do Instructional Activities Promote School Readiness? Powerpoint Slides.|
|Fuligni, A.S. Childrens Experiences in Early Childhood Programs for Low-Income Children: Influence of Program Type and Curriculum Use. Manuscript submitted for publication.|
|MyTeachingPartner (MTP)||Whitaker, S., Kinzie, M., Kraft-Sayre, Mashburn, A., & Pianta, R.C. (2007). Use and evaluation of web-based professional development services across participant levels of support. Early Childhood Educational Journal, 34 (6), 379-386.|
|Kinzie, M.B., Whitaker, S.D., Neesen, K., Kelley, M., Matera, M., & Pianta, R.C. (2006). Innovative web-based professional development for teachers of at-risk preschool children. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), 194-204.|
|Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A.J., Downer, J.T., Hamre, B.K., & Justice, L. (in press). Effects of Web-Mediated Professional Development Resources on Teacher-Child Interactions in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.|
|Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A.J., Hamre, B.K., A.J., Downer, J.T., & Justice, L. Using Web-based Feedback to Improve Teacher-child Interactions in Prekindergarten Classrooms. Powerpoint. No date provided.|
|LoCasale-Crouch, J. & Pianta, R.C. Pre-K Professional Development through Standardized, Systematic Observation and Consultation. Powerpoint. No date provided.|
|EPIC||Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P.A., McWayne, C., Frye, D., and Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 44-62.|
|Evaluation of Child Care Subsidy Strategies|
|Project Upgrade||Layzer, J.I., Layzer, C.J., Goodson, B.D., & Price, C. (2007). Subsidy Strategies: Findings from Project Upgrade in Miami-Dade County. Washington, DC. Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, OPRE and CCB. Washington, DC.|
Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF). (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings on program performance. Third progress report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Administration for Children and Families (ACF). (2003). Head Start FACES: A whole-child perspective on program performance. Fourth progress report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Barnett, W. S. (2004). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. Preschool Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.
Bryant, D., Barbarin, O., Clifford, R.M., Early, D., & Pianta, R. (June 2004). The National Center for Early Childhood Development and Learning: Multi-state study of pre-kindergartenPresentation at the National Association of the Education of Young Childrens 13th National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development, Baltimore, MD.
Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.
Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (2002). Structural predictors of child care quality in child care homes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 87-105.
Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2-11.
Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M. R., O'Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do features of child care homes affect children's development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 52-86.
Early, D., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., Crawford, G., Weaver, W., Howes, C., Ritchie, S., Kraft-Sayre, M., Pianta, R., & Barnett, W.S. (2005). Pre-Kindergarten in Eleven States: NCEDLs Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten & Study of State-Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP). Preliminary Descriptive Report. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Early, D., Bryant, D., Pianta, R., Clifford, R., Burchinal, M., Ritchie, S., et al. (2006). Are teachers education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and childrens academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quality, 21, 174-195.
Early, D., Maxwell, K., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R., et al. (2007). Teachers education, classroom quality, and young childrens academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 781(2), 558-580.
Howes, C. (1997). Childrens experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult-child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404-425.
Howes, C., Whitebook, M., & Phillips, D. (1992). Teacher characteristics and effective teaching in child care: Findings from the National Child Care Staffing Study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 21(6), 399-414.
Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H.B., & Morris, C. (2008). Quality improvement in early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives and recommendations for the future. Manuscript under review.
Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1994). Quality in family child care and relative care. NY: Teachers College Press.
Loeb, S., Rouse, C., & Shorris, A. (2007). Introducing the issue. Excellence in the classroom. The Future of Children, 17(1), 3-14.
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Phillips, B. M. (2005, April). Promoting the development of preschool childrens emergent literacy skills: A randomizedevaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Consortium (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness. (NCER 2008-2009). Washington, D.C.: Naitonal Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ramey, S.L. & Ramey, C.T. (2008). The effects of curriculum and coaching supports on classrooms and literacy skills of prekindergarten/Head Start students in Montgomery County Public Schools. Unpublished Manuscript. Georgetown University Center on Health and Education. Wahsington, DC.
Saft, E.W. & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Teachers perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly.16, 125141.
Tout, K., Zaslow, M., & Berry, D. (2006). Quality and qualifications: Links between professional development and quality in early care and education settings. In (M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck, Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Weaver, R.H. (2002). Predictors of quality and commitment in family child care: Provider education, personal resources, and support. Early Education and Development, 13(3), 265-282.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1993). National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then and now: Changes in child care staffing 1994-2000, Technical report. Washington, DC: Center for the Childcare Workforce.
Whitebook, M. (2003). Early education quality: Higher teacher qualifications for better learning environments-A review of the literature. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley.
Zaslow, M. & Martinez-Beck, I. (2006). Critical issues in early childhood professional development. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
C.1 Methods of the Studies
C.2 Content Focus of the Interventions
C.3 Training Activities Provided in the Interventions
C.4 Workplace Characteristics: Auspices/Settings
C.5 Workplace Characteristics: Incentives
C.6 Recipients of Professional Development Activities
C.7 Teacher Characteristics
C.8 Characteristics of Coaches/Mentors
C.9 Constructs Measured
C.10 Implementation Measures and Frequency of Implementation Checks
C.11 Measures Used to Assess Changes in Teacher Behavior or Instructional Practices
C.12 Professional Development, Implementation, and Changes in Classrooms/ Instructional Practices and Children
|Project Name||Research Design/
Details of Randomization
|Experimental and Control/Comparison Groups|
|Curricula||Professional Development||# of Centers/ Programs||# of Classrooms||# of Teachers||# of Children|
|Project Upgrade||Randomized.||E1: Ready, Set, Leap! (plus literacy materials)
E2: Building Early Language and Literacy (plus literacy materials)
E3: Breakthrough to Literacy (plus literacy materials)
C: Existing curricula; package of literacy materials and materials for infant-toddler center OR outdoor play materials
|E1-E3: Initial and refresher workshop, coaches||N=164:
|E1-E3: n=36 or 37
|E1-E3: n=36 or 37
|Head Start REDI||Randomized. Stratified on county location, length of program (full-day, half-day, year-round), student demographics (minority and Spanish-speaking children), and center size. Classrooms in same center randomized to same experimental condition. Recruited over 2 yrs.||E: New curriculum integrated into existing curricula. New = Preschool PATHS and language/emergency literacy skills enhancement (interactive reading, sound games, print center). Among programs, 45% were using Creative Curriculum; 55% High/Scope
C: 45% Creative Curriculum; 55% High/Scope
|E: 4-6 days per year of workshops or presentations plus 3-day summer workshop monthly visits by supervisor/mentor to provide feedback and monitor teacher adherence to program requirements and individualize goals/action plans plus weekly mentoring, videotaped models to introduce concepts, reflection and problem-solving discussions
C: 4-6 days per year of workshops or presentations; monthly visits by supervisor/mentor to provide feedback and monitor teacher adherence to program requirements and individualize goals/action plans
|E: n=22 teachers, n=21 assistant teachers
C: n=22 teachers, n=22 assistant teachers
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||Randomized to E and wait-list C||E: Early Language and Literacy Model
C: Locally-accepted curriculum. Creative Curriculum, Beyond Centers and Circle Time, High Reach, or High/Scope*
|E: initial summer workshop, coaches, team meetings||N=48 classrooms||N=466:
|Language-Focused Curriculum||Randomized.||E: Language-Focused Curriculum
C: Existing curriculum: High/Scope*
|E: Summer 3-day institute on language development and the LFC curriculum
C: Summer 3-day institute on topics such as creative music and movement, behavior management techniques
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/Doors to Discovery||Randomized. Randomization by school site. Schools first randomized into curriculum condition, then into mentoring/no mentoring condition.||E1: Lets Begin with the Letter People + mentoring
E2: Lets Begin with the Letter People + non-mentoring
E3: Doors to Discovery + mentoring
E4: Doors to Discovery + non-mentoring
C: Variety of classroom curricula and materials
|E1-E4: initial 4-day summer workshop
E1 and E3: mentoring 2x month to help with lesson planning, demonstration of curricula, fidelity issues, classroom schedules, behavioral issues, side-by-side coaching on implementation of curricula
E2 and E4: Feedback 3x/year on implementation of curricula
|Literacy Express||Randomized trial||E1: Literacy Express
E2: Literacy Express
E2: workshops plus mentoring
C: business as usual
|Childrens School Success||Randomized cluster design. Randomized by classroom.||E: ScienceStart!, 123 Mathematics, ABC Literacy, the Incredible Years, Building Blocks Curriculum Model||E1: 3-day initial workshop, plus weekly consultation/support||E: n=10
|N=30 (15 in Year 1 and 15 in Year 2)||N=809|
|MyTeachingPartner Whitaker et al (2007); Kinzie et al (2006)||Randomized trial. Also, focus groups of some participating teachers||E1: MTP Curriculum for Language and Literacy Development, Banking Time, and PATHS curriculum
|E1: Materialscomputer and access to MTP website
E2: Web same as E1, plus printed versions o MTP and PATHS, more resources on web
E3: Consultancy same as E2, plus biweekly on-line chats with consultant and reflection on videotapes of their own teaching practices
|For randomized groups: N=235:
For focus groups:
|N=1659 being followed as of Kinzie et al (2006) article|
|MyTeachingPartner Pianta et al (article and powerpoint)||Randomized at district level, stratified by district size (small, medium, and large, defined by the number of classrooms in the preK program)||E1: MTP Curriculum for Language and Literacy Development, Banking Time, and PATHS curriculum
|E1: Web Access teachers: activity descriptions, materials, access to MTP website
E2: Consultancy teachers: same as E1, plus biweekly discussions with teaching consultant
|Building Language for Literacy||Randomized, to assure an equal proportion of Head Start classrooms in E1, E2, and C||E1: Building Language for Literacy
E2: Building Language for Literacy
E3: Building Language for Literacy and other curricula
|E1: 3-day summer institute, weekly coaching (30 sessions), opportunity to attend evening group meetings for more PD
E2: Same as E1, plus monthly coaching (8 sessions)
C: Existing Montgomery County Public Schools PD: voluntary summer institute for certified teachers, voluntary ½-day summer training for paraeducators, additional professional days during year. Supervisors and content specialists visit classrooms during year and observe and provide PD.
|Chicago School Readiness Project||Randomized at the preschool site level, with pair-wise matching procedure used on 14 variables. Intent-to-treat analyses||E: Modification of The Incredible Years; teacher training plus mental health consultants
C: Teachers aide assigned to classrooms
|E: Saturday workshops plus weekly visits by mental health consultants
C: Teachers aide assigned to classroom
|Getting Ready||Single-subject designs (e.g., A/B with follow-up design; reversal or multiple baseline design) (Based on Sheridan et al, 2006)||Intervention to help ECE staff and parents work together to improve childrens social-emotional development||Initial workshop plus individual and group coaching||N=44||N=50|
|Pre-K Mathematics||Randomized trial. Block randomization: 40 preschool classrooms, with 10 Head Start and 10 state-funded preschools in each of two states)||E: PreK Mathematics with DLM Early Childhood Express Math software
C: Various (Creative Curriculum, High/Scope, Montessori, and locally developed curricula)
|E: initial workshop and second work shop, and on-site training||6 programs (4 in CA and 2 in NY)||N=40:
*SOURCES: All information from submitted articles except items marked with an asterisk. Those items are drawn from 2008 report on PCERS studies, available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20082009/pdf/20082009.pdf
|Project Name||Language/ Literacy||Mathematics||Science||Social-Emotional||School Readiness/
|Head Start REDI||X||X|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||X|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||X|
|Childrens School Success||X||X||X||X|
|Building Language for Literacy||X|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||X|
|Project Name||Initial workshop||Refresher workshop||Ongoing Access to Web-Based Materials||Coaches/ Mentors||Reflection/ Group Discussion|
|Project Upgrade||Yes (length unspecified)||2 (length unspecified)||Every 2 weeks|
|Head Start REDI||3 days (summer)||1 day (midway through year)||Weekly. Avg 3 hr/week visits to classroom, plus 1 hour/ week meeting with teachers and assistant teachers||Yes with mentor|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||2 days (summer)||Weekly support from literacy coach||Monthly site-based literacy team meetings; quarterly regional teacher meetings|
|Language-Focused Curriculum||3 days (month before school); approximately 15 hrs total||2.5 hours (January)|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||4 days (summer)||1.5 hrs (2 times per month)|
|Literacy Express||X||X (in one condition)|
|Childrens School Success||3 days||1 day (1 month later)||Weekly meetings with teachers and teaching assistants); fidelity of treatment measure 7 times/yr|
|MyTeachingPartner||Depends on specific study: 1.5 day (summer) or training and introductory workshop (fall)||X||Depends on condition, but on-line video-chat feedback and consultation in 2-week cycles, repeated during the year|
|Building Language for Literacy||3 days for teachers, 2 days for paraeducators (summer)||Monthly or weekly (depending on condition): all-day visits by coaches with private feedback/ discussion||Monthly 2-hour evening meetings for additional profess-sional develop-ment and to exchange ideas|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||Invited to participate in 5 trainings on Saturdays, each lasting 6 hours||Booster training for new staff (mid-winter)||1 morning/ week in classroom|
|Getting Ready||Depends on study: 1-3 days||Annual booster session||1 hour/ month individual coaching sessions||Group coaching: 1.5 2 hrs/month|
|Pre-K Mathematics||4-day training on units 1-3||4-day training on units 4-7 (winter)||On-site training 2x/month; implementa-tion rating and feedback 1-2x/month|
|Project Name||Head Start||State Pre-school||School District Preschool||Private/
Community-based Preschool or Child Care
|Title I||UPK||High School Student Parent Programs||Early Head Start (home visits)|
|Head Start REDI||X|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||X||X||X|
|Childrens School Success||X||X||X|
|Building Language for Literacy||X||X|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||X|
Note: Programs participating in Project Upgrade were described as child care centers that had to serve primarily low-income children, including some whose care was subsidized; and have at least one four-year-old classroom with at least five children. (p. 8) No additional descriptions of the programs were provided.
|Project Name||Curricula Materials||Training||Financial||Course Credits||Other|
|$500 annual payment for teachers who remained at same center for entire study year|
|Head Start REDI||$20 for each observation|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model|
|Allowance to use for PD opportunities; small account for educational supplies during year|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||
|Summary report of language and literacy skills of enrolled children|
|Childrens School Success|
|Building Language for Literacy||Compensated for attending evening sessions||Up to 16 hrs of professional development credit|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||$15/hr for participation|
Note: This table reports incentives, as they were described by project authors.
|Project Name||Teachers||Assistant Teachers/Aides||Coaches|
|Head Start REDI||X||X|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||X||X|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||X|
|Childrens School Success||X|
|Building Language for Literacy||X||X (paraeducators)|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||X||X|
|Getting Ready||X (and home visitors)||X|
|Project Name||Race/Ethnicity||Language||Educational Experience||Tenure in Field|
|Project Upgrade||>1/2 Spanish as primary language; >1/4 spoke English at home; 11% spoke both Spanish and English. Most spoke English only (42%) or mix of English and Spanish (26%) in classroom.||28% no education beyond high school. 14% some college. 58% AA or BA degree. Of post-secondary degrees, >75% from institutions outside US.|
|Head Start REDI||Lead teachers (E group): 85% white, 2% black, 1% multi-racial.
Assistant teachers (E group): 91% white, 9% Hispanic
|E lead and assistant teachers: 95% English-speaking||Lead teachers: 55% in E group had 4-year degree+; 35% had CDA credential; 40% had teaching certificate.
Assistant teachers: 68% in E had high-school or some post-HS education
|Lead teachers in E: 75% had 6+ yrs experience;
Assistant teachers in E group: 64% had 6+ years experience
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||63% African American||40% E teachers at least 2-yr AA degree||Avg: 14 yrs experience working with young children; most with <3.5 yrs in current position.|
|Language-Focused Curriculum||100% white, non-Hispanic||78% - BA or graduate degree||Avg: 11.4 years in the classroom|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/Doors to Discovery||Head Start: 71% African American, 13% Hispanic, 6% Caucasian; 10% other; Title I: 100% white; UPK: 84% white, 11% Hispanic, 5% other||Head Start: 6% high school, 39% CDA, 10% 2-year, 39% 4-year, 6% graduate; Title I: 81% 4-year, 19% graduate; UPK: 79% 4-year, 16% graduate.
Head Start: teaching certificate 13%, SPED 3%, ESL 3%, none 58%; Title I: teaching certificate 92%, SPED 15%, ESL 88%, none 0%; UPK: teaching certificate 84%, SPED 10%, ESL 19%, none 0%
|Childrens School Success|
|MyTeachingPartner||72% white, 24% African American, 4% multi-racial||100%, at least BA. 35% with advanced degree. Educational majors: 34% early childhood; 31% elementary; 5% SPED, ESL, CD||Avg = 15.9 years|
|Building Language for Literacy||Lead teachers: Masters degree with specialty in ECE|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||70% African-American, 20% Latina, 10% white.||Most with AA or higher, ¼ with high school degree or some college; near 50% with AA degree, nearly ¼ with BA or higher|
|Getting Ready||100% white||9% AA degree; 61% BA; 28% MA; 2% doctorate|
|Pre-K Mathematics||38% white; 33% African-American, 13% Hispanic, 10% Asian American, 5% interracial/other.||73% BA or higher||Avg = 12.4 years experience teaching preschool, with state-funded preschool teachers having more experience (16 yrs) than Head Start teachers (10 years).|
|Project Upgrade||On-site coordinators|
|Head Start REDI||Experienced master teachers||2 project-based senior educational trainers|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||ELLM consultants provide TA and support|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||Senior-level trainers, intimately familiar with curriculum|
|Childrens School Success|
|Building Language for Literacy||MA in reading||>20 years experience in providing professional development; extensive experience working in school district|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||Matched to sites on basis of racial/ethnic and cultural similarity, Spanish proficiency, and judgment of supervisory staff||LCSW trainer; MSW mental health consultants||Trained using a manualized approach||MA-level intervention coordinator|
|Getting Ready||83% female, 92% white; 8% Hispanic||Grad students in school psychology||Demonstrated mastery of program model in a training program|
|Project Name||Implementation||Classroom/ Instruction||Child Outcomes||Parent Outcomes|
|Head Start REDI||X||X||X|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||X|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||X||X|
|Childrens School Success||X||X||X|
|Building Language for Literacy||X||X||X|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||X||X||X|
|Project Name||Frequency of Implementation Checks||Measures of Implementation|
|Project Upgrade||Every 2 weeks (coach visits)||Curriculum-specific checklist|
|Head Start REDI||At least monthly||Curriculum-specific|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||Weekly|
|Language-Focused Curriculum||Observed classrooms 3x yr; teachers sent in lesson plans weekly||Curriculum-specific checklist; 50-minute video sample of instruction; assessment of activity contexts and instructional processes|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||3x/year||Curriculum-specific checklist|
|Childrens School Success||7x/year||% of curriculum completed; quality of implementation|
|MyTeachingPartner||Ongoing||Minutes/month n website, working with on-line consultant; % of teacher-submitted videotapes that included language/literacy or social development activities|
|Building Language for Literacy||Weekly/monthly, depending on experimental condition||Curriculum-specific checklist|
|Chicago School Readiness Project|
|Getting Ready||Yes frequency unclear||Audiotapes of individual/group sessions, coach notes, teacher/provider reports of completion of plan components, fidelity ratings of home visit videos|
|Pre-K Mathematics||1-2x/month||Adherence to schedule of activities; preparation of materials; delivery of small-group math activities; provision of developmental adjustments to individual children; written assessments of individual children; parents self-report on use of home activities; teachers use of DLM Express math software|
|Project Upgrade||OMLIT, Arnett Caregiver Rating Scale|
|Head Start REDI||CLASS, Teacher Style Rating Scale, Classroom Language and Literacy Environment Observation|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model||Use of language stimulation techniques (LSTs)|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery||CIRCLE- Teacher Behavior Rating Scale|
|Childrens School Success||CLASS (1 hr of videotaped observations), ELLCO|
|Building Language for Literacy||ELLCO; Ramey & Ramey Observation of Learning Essentials (ROLE)|
|Chicago School Readiness Project||ECERS-R (baseline only), CLASS|
|Pre-K Mathematics||Early Mathematics Classroom Observation (EMCO)|
|Project (PI)||Initial Workshop||Refresher Workshop||Coaching/ Mentoring||Reflection/ Group Discussion||Frequency of Implementation Checks||Implementation Fidelity||Classroom/ Instructional Quality||Child Outcomes||Interactions|
|Project Upgrade (Abt Associates)||
Every 2 weeks
|Every 2 weeks||By end of Yr 1: 11-22% of classrooms not implementing at satisfactory level. By end of Yr 2, 3-4 centers per group not implementing at satisfactory level.||At end of study: E>C on six constructs related to promoting literacy (support for oral language; print knowledge; print motivation; support for phonological awareness; literacy resources; literacy activities).||For 2/3 curricula: E>C on definitional vocabulary, phonological awareness, print knowledge, and early literacy index.||Effects on classrooms/instructional practices as strong or stronger for Spanish-dominant than English-dominant teachers. Effects on child outcomes stronger for children in classes with Spanish-dominant teachers, and, to a lesser extent, for children whose home language was Spanish or Haitian Creole (combined group). Small effect for BA degree for some classroom instructional measures, driven by Spanish-speaking teachers.|
|Head Start REDI (Bierman)||3 days||1 day||Weekly||yes||At least monthly||Average ratings of adequate to strong for implementation of PATHS, dialogic reading, alphabet activities, Sound Game activities, and overall REDI program.||TSRS: E>C positive emotional climate, classroom management; E=C positive discipline
CLASS: trend, but ns emotional climate, instructional support
E>C for more statements, asking more questions, more decontextualized utterances, richer and more sensitive talk with children.
|E>C oral language, social-emotional competence
E>C on two measures of executive function (cognitive performance task and behavioral performance task)
E=C backward word span, peg tapping, Walk-a-Line slowly
Teacher practice correlated with child outcomes, and accounts for 30-77% of intervention effect (depending on child outcome)
|REDI intervention effects were as large for assistant teachers as for more highly educated lead teachers.|
|Early Literacy and Learning Model (Fountain)||2 days||Weekly||Monthly, quarterly||Weekly||E>C emergent literacy skills||Teacher education (BA) predicted student achievement on conventions of print measure, but, more generally, childrens Fall to Spring gains were about equal in magnitude between BA and non-BA ELLM teachers.|
|Language-Focused Curriculum (Justice)||3 days||2.5 hours||Weekly check-ins (non-observation); observations 3x/yr||Teachers submitted average of 39/40 weekly lesson plans (high fidelity), but average use of LSTs by teachers very low, though increased after refresher. On average, more implementation of activity contexts than of instructional processes (e.g., LSTs).||E=C on use of language stimulation techniques (LSTs).||E=C expressive language skills||Children who attended preschool more regularly did better, so child attendance and implementation are both important to figuring out dosage and effects on children.|
|Lets Begin with the Letter People/ Doors to Discovery (Landry)||4 days||1.5 hrs (2x/mo)||3x/yr||High levels of implementation, with growth over time. Better fidelity on Lets Begin than Doors to Discovery||Generally E>C, but interactions. Examples: Language comprehension: Mentored, Title I/D to D classes and non-mentored Title I/Lets Begin classes showed slower growth than C.||Greater gains in Head Start classrooms, whether mentored or not, but for other classroom types, curriculum and mentoring mattered.|
|Literacy Express (Lonigan)||
X (in one condition)
|Mentoring + workshops > workshops only on print knowledge, but not oral language, phonological processing, or cognition|
|Childrens School Success (Odom)||3 days||1 day||Weekly||7x/yr||Better fidelity in Year 2 than Year 1. Coaching associated with better implementation.||Relationship of fidelity with child outcomes varies across variables. Low performers (at baseline) benefit more from high implementation and less for low implementation, with exception of math where there was a strong main effect for quality of implementation.||Little relationship between years of teaching and/or degree status and curriculum implementation. Teachers motivation to change is powerful factor in curriculum implementation.|
|MyTeachingPartner (Pianta)||1.5 days (some articles)||2-week cycles, repeated during the year||Ongoing (online)||Ongoing (on-line)||In one study: over 6 months: average website use of 18 minutes/month for activities, videos, and quality teaching; 43 min/mo for consultancy section. Teachers reported avg of 720 minutes per month for preparing/implementing lessons; 57 min/mo for responding to prompts. Avg of 10 cycles completed/yr.||Teachers grew more sensitive in interactions with students, became more adept at engaging students in instruction, improved the quality of their language stimulation techniques.||Consultancy had greater effect on teacher practices in high-poverty classrooms. Even videos (without consultancy) are helpful though. Teachers in high-poverty classrooms accessed more consultancy support.|
|Building Language for Literacy (Ramey & Ramey)||3 days for teachers; 2 days for para-educators||Weekly (30 sessions) or monthly (8 sessions depending on condition)||Monthly||Weekly or monthly||Monthly coaching > weekly coaching conditions for fidelity. Authors note importance of MIS and monitoring for program quality and improvement.||Monthly = weekly coaching on ELLCO||E (coaching) conditions > C, on multiple measures, but weekly coaching not always better than monthly|
|Chicago School Readiness Project (Raver)||5 trainings x 6 Saturdays (avg 18/30 possible hrs per tchr)||Yes||Weekly||Average teacher received 18 of 30 possible hrs of initial training; classrooms received avg of 132 hrs of teacher training and mental health consultation.||E>C for classrooms positive climate (CLASS); E better than C for negative climate; marginal benefits on teacher sensitivity, trends toward benefits on teachers management of childrens disruptive behavior. No effect of teachers psychosocial stressors on classroom emotional climate.||Executive function (C group, preliminary results only)||Lower quality social interaction and behavior management in classrooms with less experienced teachers.|
|Getting Ready (Sheridan)||1-3 days||1/yr||1 hr/mo||1.5-2hrs/mo||Yes||Average effect size for all behavioral outcomes in the home was 1.01, and in the school, 1.15.|
|Pre-K Mathematics (Starkey)||4 days||4 days||2x/mo||1-2x/mo||Overall fidelity scores unrelated to teachers education level and years of preschool teaching experience.||E>C for total number of minutes of math support per child per day, for focal math support. E=C for # minutes of embedded math support. No differences due to either teacher education level or amt of preschool teaching experience.||E>C for gains in math; E=C for gains in reading skills, language composite, and social skills. Fidelity didnt predict change in child outcomes, but amt of focal math provided did predict child outcome scores.||No differences due to program type (Head Start/state preschool; half-day/full-day classes), or teacher education/experience.|
 At the time publications and reports on these four initiatives were requested from the principal investigators, analyses had not yet been completed for all projects. QUINCE sent no papers to review, and several other projects indicated that additional studies would be forthcoming.
 Study not in the set submitted but used to supplement information.
"index.pdf" (pdf, 307.32Kb)
"apa.pdf" (pdf, 78.45Kb)
"apb.pdf" (pdf, 401.85Kb)
"apc.pdf" (pdf, 288.78Kb)
"apd.pdf" (pdf, 90.04Kb)
"ape.pdf" (pdf, 190.7Kb)