The effect of a multicomponent literacy instruction model on literacy growth for kindergartners and first‐grade students in Chile

Abstract

In the present study we examined the impact of a comprehensive literacy instruction model called Collaborative Language and Literacy Instruction Project (CLLIP) on language and literacy achievement over the course of a year by Spanish-speaking children in Chile. Participants included kindergartners (N = 312) from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds and first-grade students (N = 305) from high SES families. The CLLIP model targeted phonological awareness, alphabetics and phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing, and included coaching and sustained follow-up as key elements for teacher professional development. The results showed promise for the CLLIP model in the Chilean context. Kindergartners in CLLIP classrooms had faster growth rates in letter naming, word reading, vocabulary, and phonemic segmentation fluency than those in control classrooms, and had higher scores at the end of the year in phonemic segmentation fluency, letter naming, and word reading. In addition, kindergartners from high SES families had faster growth rates than kindergartners from low SES families in letter naming and word reading. Effect sizes ranged from small (d = .18 in word reading) to fairly large (d = .70 in letter-naming fluency). First-grade students in CLLIP classrooms had faster growth rates than students in control classrooms in vocabulary, nonword reading fluency, word reading, and reading comprehension. Effect sizes were small in vocabulary, nonword reading fluency, and reading comprehension (.23 ≤ d ≤ .28) and medium in word reading (d = .50). These results suggest that the present multicomponent literacy instructional model had a positive impact on Chilean children's literacy acquisition.

Relationships of Teachers’ Language and Explicit Vocabulary Instruction to Students’ Vocabulary Growth in Kindergarten

“…Hart & Risley, 1995;Hoff, 2006;Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012;Schady, 2006Schady, , 2011, we seek vocabulary interventions that are equally or more effective for students who start out behind. A few program evaluations, including one in Chile, have considered variation in impacts of programs including explicit vocabulary instruction, and some, but not all, have found greater effects for students with poorer vocabularies (Hamre et al, 2010;Pallante & Kim, 2013). Therefore, it is important to better understand not just which types of classroom instruction are more effective in supporting vocabulary growth but also what works for whom.…”

“…Given the large variation in vocabulary size and growth trajectories that have been identified within the United States and Latin American countries, and which are highly correlated with and predicted by SES (Fernald et al., ; B. Hart & Risley, ; Hoff, ; Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin‐Meadow, ; Schady, , ), we seek vocabulary interventions that are equally or more effective for students who start out behind. A few program evaluations, including one in Chile, have considered variation in impacts of programs including explicit vocabulary instruction, and some, but not all, have found greater effects for students with poorer vocabularies (Hamre et al., ; Hindman, Erhart, & Wasik, ; Pallante & Kim, ). Therefore, it is important to better understand not just which types of classroom instruction are more effective in supporting vocabulary growth but also what works for whom.…”

“…As a result, the preschool and kindergarten classrooms may not provide strong support to young learners’ language development through book‐reading activities. Interventions to improve the nature of language and literacy supports in the Latin American context, including a focus on dialogic reading, skill assessment, and literacy instruction, have shown positive impacts on students’ vocabulary (Neugebauer & Currie‐Rubin, ; Pallante & Kim, ; Rolla San Francisco, Arias, Villers, & Snow, ). However, all of these interventions combined a variety of teaching approaches, and none detailed the relationships between particular aspects of teaching and student outcomes.…”

Eficacia de una intervención en alfabetización basada en la evidencia para niños hispanoparlantes con riesgo lector de niveles socioeconómicos vulnerables

“…Aunque nuestros participantes mostraron mejoras significativas en el post-test, el progreso de los niños del grupo experimental sólo pudimos atribuirlo a nuestra intervención en la sub-habilidad de identificación de rimas y parcialmente en la habilidad de comprensión lectora. Nuestros resultados son consistentes con la evidencia proporcionada por estudios similares realizados en otros países de habla hispana en América Latina (Pallante y Kim, 2013;Strasser et al, 2016.;Yoshikawa et al, 2015) y contrastan con los resultados de investigaciones con participantes de habla hispana en EE.UU. (Escamilla et al, 1998;Mathes et al, 2007).…”

School Readiness Research in Latin America: Findings and Challenges

“…Small but statistically significant associations were observed between dosage and children's language and literacy skills (Mendive, Weiland, Yoshikawa, & Snow, ), suggesting that the strategies implemented in the program may have been effective but that implementation may not have provided sufficient dosage for all children. In a smaller intervention in Chile, Pallante and Kim () examined the impact of a comprehensive literacy instruction model, the Collaborative Language and Literacy Instruction Project (CLLIP), on the language and literacy achievement of 312 children over the course of the kindergarten year. The CLLIP model targeted phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing and included coaching and sustained follow‐up as key elements for teacher professional development.…”