Final Report: Implementation and Pilot Study
34
and expressive vocabulary, and literacy skills. Higher scores on the English language screener were positively associated with receptive vocabulary, literacy, cognitive/social, and emotion/regulation skills. Lastly, results showed that higher number of students in the classroom was associated with lower receptive vocabulary and lower cognitive/social skills. There were no other significant associations; thus, all other correlations are uninterpretable.
Table 4. Correlations Between Contextual and Demographic Characteristics and Students' Outcomes
Receptive Vocabulary
Expressive Vocabulary
Cognitive/ Social
Emotions/ Regulation
Executive Function
Literacy
Math
Age
0.20
0.44*
-0.08
0.36*
0.42*
0.39*
0.26
Income
0.39*
0.28
0.31
0.10
0.28
0.21
-0.24
Parent Highest Education
0.56***
0.39*
0.44*
0.24
0.09
-0.08
0.04
Years Teaching
-0.05
0.11
0.10
0.23
-0.21
-0.03
0.21
# of Students in Classroom English Language Screener
-0.43*
-0.24
-0.07
-0.02
-0.39*
-0.004
0.08
0.55*
-0.10
0.51*
0.41
0.68**
0.77***
0.45
*significant difference, p < .05 **significant difference p < .01 ***significant difference, p < .001
Initial Examination of Group Differences. Like analyses with students ’ demographic and classroom information, we sought to examine overall differences between the PKOMW and comparison, free of control variables. To do this we conducted a series of Independent Sample T-tests with students ’ school readiness domains (i.e., expressive, and receptive vocabulary, literacy, math, executive functioning, and social emotional skills) as outcomes. These analyses revealed that overall, students in the PKOMW group performed better in expressive and receptive vocabulary and math than students in the comparison group when not controlling for any other variables (Table 5). There were no significant differences in students’ scores on literacy, social-emotional, or executive functioning assessments. Some of the differences that are identified in these sets of analyses may be explained by some of the differences that were discussed above, under the descriptive analyses. For example, results in Table 5 show that students in the PKOMW group outperformed those in the comparison group across receptive and expressive vocabulary, as well as on measures of math. However, descriptive analyses revealed that students in the PKOMW group came from families with higher household income, had parents with higher levels of education and were in classrooms with fewer students as compared to those in the comparison group, variables which have been found to be associated with child outcomes (Kim et al., 2014).
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs