Final Report: Implementation and Pilot Study
39
receptive vocabulary and math. However, when controlling for demographic characteristics, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on measures of school readiness. This study also found, that when examining only DLL students — that is, students who spoke a language other than English at home — PKOMW DLLs (n = 9) outperformed those in the comparison DLLs group (n = 9) on measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary and math. This was true even when controlling for key variables, such as household income, parents’ level of education , number of children in the classroom, and English language skills. The PKOMW curriculum targets students’ language, math, and literacy skills and aims to impact students executive functioning and social-emotional skills. Given PKOMW’s target domains , and specific focus on supporting DLLs, findings mostly align with expectations. Furthermore, the differential pattern in finding significant results for DLLs but not monolingual students, can be explained by prior literature. Previous studies have found that DLL students ’ second language vocabulary increases rapidly at school entry (Hammer et al., 2008; 2014). DLL students may receive a greater proportion of English language learning exposure in school; therefore, DLLs’ English vocabulary could be dependent upon classroom language experiences with peers and teachers. Conversely, monolingual English-speaking students enter classrooms hearing English at home and in school. Thus, their English vocabulary is less likely to depend solely on classroom input and therefore is more difficult, comparatively, to improve with classroom interventions alone. The finding that DLL students in the PKOMW classrooms performed better than those in the comparison classroom suggests that the DLL specific component of the curriculum could be particularly beneficial for DLL students. However, more research is needed (e.g., with a larger sample of students, DLLs with varying English skills) to further investigate the impacts of the PKOMW curriculum. There is also a need to better comprehend teacher preparation and professional development around working with DLLs, and the language background of teachers. These factors might also have played a role in how teachers used the PKOMW curriculum to support DLL children (Castro et al., 2017; Patika, 2023; Tang et al., 2012). Despite the strong literacy component in the PKOMW curriculum, student ’s literacy scores across the two groups did not differ after adjusting for demographic and other important contextual characteristics (i.e., controlling for DLL status, household income, parents’ highest level of education, and number of students in their classrooms). Additionally, there were no differences between students executive functioning and social-emotional skills. This could be due to several reasons. The PKOMW curriculum was intended for use with full-day 4-and 5-year-old preschool students; however, at the discretion of the participating district, it was implemented in half-day programs with three-and four-year-olds. All participating classrooms in this study were half-day. Teachers cited difficulties in using all the materials because they did not have enough time to enact all PKOMW activities. Additionally, teachers perceived that the curriculum was meant for older students. They reported that PKOMW was not developmentally appropriate for younger three-year old students. They discussed adapting the materials to meet the needs of students in their classroom. For example, some teachers cut down on the duration of book reading in each session, due to younger students ’ attention spans. These adaptations strayed from the intended implementation of PKOMW, potentially making it more difficult to detect an effect of the materials on students’ outcomes.
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs