Oral language supports early literacy: A pilot cluster randomized trial in disadvantaged schools

Abstract

This study examined the impact of teacher professional development aimed at improving the capacity of primary teachers in disadvantaged schools to strengthen children's expressive and receptive oral language skills and early literacy success in the first 2 years of school. Fourteen low-SES schools in Victoria, Australia were randomly allocated to a research (n = 8) or control arm (n = 6), resulting in an initial sample of 1254 students, (n = 602 in research arm and n = 652 in control arm). The intervention comprised 6 days of teacher and principal professional development (delivered by language and literacy experts), school-based continuing contact with the research team and completion by one staff member of each research school of a postgraduate unit on early language and literacy. Schools in the control arm received standard teaching according to state auspiced curriculum guidelines. Full data were available on 979 students at follow-up (time 2). Students in the research arm performed significantly better on Test of Language Development: Primary (Fourth Edition) sub-tests (p ≤ .002) and the Reading Progress Test (F = 10.4(1); p = .001) than students in the control arm at time 2. Narrative scores were not significantly different at time 2, although students in research schools showed greater gains. Findings provide "proof of concept" for this approach, and are discussed with respect to implications for teacher professional development and pre-service education concerning the psycholinguistic competencies that underpin the transition to literacy.

Listening to the Voices of Education Professionals Involved in Implementing an Oral Language and Early Literacy Program in the Classroom

“…Like Snow et al (2014) who highlighted the importance of speech pathologists in supporting teachers, this study acknowledges the importance of speech pathologists in supporting teachers and teacher assistants in primary schools. Future mixed methods research in this area will not only help to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs, such as PrepSTART in enhancing the oral language and literacy performance of children, but also provide a better understanding of the facilitators and barriers to implementing these programs in the classroom.…”

“…Recent efforts to enhance the oral language and early literacy competence of young school-age children has focused on the role of the teacher in pre-school and primary school classrooms (Snow et al, 2014, Wilcox, Gray, Guimond, & Lafferty, 2011. For example, in the Teaching Early Literacy and Language program in pre-school settings, teachers received professional development, classroom support and mentoring to implement the curriculum (Wilcox et al, 2011).…”

“…For example, in the Teaching Early Literacy and Language program in pre-school settings, teachers received professional development, classroom support and mentoring to implement the curriculum (Wilcox et al, 2011). Findings showed that curriculum packages that support teachers in classroom instruction of oral language and early literacy hold potential for enhancing outcomes for children in these areas (e.g., Snow et al, 2014).…”

“…Neuman and Wright (2010) explored the effectiveness of coaching on early childhood teachers' early language and literacy practices and again found improvement with teachers who had received coaching. Findings from Snow et al (2014) highlighted the important role played by speech pathologists in supporting teachers to deliver reading instruction that is evidence based. In their study they found significant differences in students' vocabulary, syntactic understanding and some aspects of phonemic awareness between students whose teachers had received professional development and those whose teachers who did not receive professional development.…”

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

“…However, in all studies that included a training component and reported positive outcomes for children (see sections above) training was intensive and did not occur as an isolated training event. At Tier 1, successful professional development for education staff was at least 8 hours (in the Starling et al, 2012 study), but more often closer to 50-60 hours in Snow et al (2014) and studies in the meta-analysis by Markussen-Brown et al (2017) and accompanied by individual coaching or observation sessions. Tier 2 studies involved relatively intensive initial training (four days in Fricke et al, 2013;Bowyer-Crane et al, 2008) followed by regular (fortnightly), on-going training, support and monitoring for staff delivering programmes.…”