Early education of dual language learners: An efficacy study of the Nuestros Niños School Readiness professional development program

Castro, Dina C.; Gillanders, Cristina; Franco, Ximena; Bryant, Donna; Zepeda, Marlene; Willoughby, Michael T.; Méndez, Lucía I.

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.002

Cited by 40 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In four studies in which researchers delivered the instruction in English in both the experimental condition and in the comparison or BAU condition, receptive vocabulary was reported as a child outcome. Effects in two of the four studies showed no noteworthy differences on the researcher-developed measures ( d = − 0.17, Buysse et al, 2010; d = − 0.03, Castro et al, 2017). There were noteworthy effects ( d = − 0.31) on the standardized, norm-referenced measure favoring the BAU condition (Castro et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In 50% of the group experimental design studies (8 of 16), the authors stated bilingual instruction was provided in the experimental condition, and English was used exclusively in the comparison or the business-as-usual (BAU) condition. In four studies (Buysse et al, 2010; Castro et al, 2017; Collins, 2010; Pollard-Durodola et al, 2016), English was used in both the intervention and comparison or BAU conditions, but components of the experimental intervention were not delivered in the comparison or BAU conditions. In one study, the instruction was delivered solely in the home language in the experimental condition and in English in the comparison condition (Kohnert & Danahy, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 76% of studies (19 of 25), researchers only measured oral language skills, in five studies researchers measured both oral language and code-related skills (Buysse et al, 2010; Castro et al, 2017; Durán et al, 2010; Farver et al, 2009; Landry et al, 2019), and in one study (Matera & Gerber, 2008), only code-related skills were measured (see Tables 3 and 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic Review of English Early Literacy Interventions for Children Who Are Dual Language Learners

Hur

Snyder

Reichow

2020

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children who are dual language learners (DLLs) often have more difficulty acquiring English early literacy skills than their English monolingual peers. Much remains to be learned about efficacious early literacy instructional interventions and their effects on English early literacy skills of DLLs. The purposes of this systematic review were to describe key features of English early literacy interventions provided to children who were DLLs and their effects on English early literacy skills. We conducted an electronic database search and used additional methods to identify 25 studies. Studies varied in defining and characterizing children who were DLLs, including whether they were simultaneous versus sequential DLLs and how information was gathered about primary and secondary language exposure. Use of bilingual and monolingual instruction showed promise for enhancing English early literacy skills, although mixed findings were common when both language and code-related outcomes were measured. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic Review of English Early Literacy Interventions for Children Who Are Dual Language Learners

Hur

Snyder

Reichow

2020

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, the results of the qualitative analysis of senior preschoolers' performance of diagnostic tasks evidence the success of children of the experimental groups since the parents of the children were actively involved in the kindergarten's educational activity towards teaching English (CASTRO et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The studies of Gabdulchakov (2014), Mirolyubov (2010), Protasova (2016) and Steiner and Hayes (2008) Accordingly, the role of the teacher's personality significantly increases, which conditions the effectiveness and fecundity of the development of all interaction participants (CASTRO et al, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogical conditions for the formation of senior preschool children’s foreign language competence

Izmailova

Sheinova

Soldatenko

2020

Ensaio: aval.pol.públ.Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the research is to identify, theoretically substantiate and empirically study the pedagogical conditions for the formation of senior preschoolers’ foreign language competence. The methods consist in authorial diagnostic procedures aimed at studying the interaction participants’ foreign language competence. The research identified the specifics of the interaction between subjects of preschool education. The authors revealed the influence of parents’ participation on the foreign language competence, motivation, attitude, and openness to learn foreign languages as well as preschoolers’ psychological anxiety toward the perception of foreign speech. The authors expanded the ideas on forming preschool children’s foreign language competence in pedagogical theory and practice and on the realization of the opportunities of interaction participants based on the social-pedagogical partnership, which allows improving joint activities between modern preschool organizations and families.

show abstract

Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review

McCartan,

Roberts,

Jordan

2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGlobally, children are legally obliged to attend school at a certain age (ranging from 4 to 7 years old). Developmental differences are rarely considered at school entry nor are they always reflected in the teaching and learning environment. Children who start school without being ready to cope may be significantly disadvantaged. Failure at school can impact directly on long‐term outcomes such as unemployment, crime, adolescent pregnancy, and psychological and physical morbidity in adulthood. In contrast, experiencing success at school can impact positively on a child's self esteem, behaviour, attitude, and future outcomes. School readiness interventions aim to prepare a child for the academic content of education and the psychosocial competencies considered important for learning such as self‐regulation, listening, following instructions and learning to share in play and other social settings. There is a need for evidence of the effectiveness of centre‐based school readiness interventions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of centre‐based interventions for improving school readiness in preschool children.Search MethodsIn October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, ERIC, eight additional databases and three trials registers. Other eligible studies were identified through handsearches of reference lists, reports, reviews and relevant websites.Selection CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs comparing centre‐based school readiness interventions to no intervention, wait‐list control or treatment as usual (TAU) for children (aged three to 7 years before starting compulsory education). The primary outcomes were school readiness and adverse effects.Data Collection and AnalysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.Main ResultsWe included data from 32 trials involving 16,899 children (6590 included in at least one meta‐analysis). Four studies compared centre‐based early education interventions with no treatment controls. Twenty‐two trials compared an enriched school curriculum to treatment as usual (TAU). Children were aged between 3 and 7 years old (mean age 4.4 years), 51.7% were boys and at least 70% were from a racial/ethnic minority group. Most studies were conducted in the USA and mainly located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions were delivered in centre‐based settings (pre‐kindergarten or elementary schools), for at least one half day, 4 days per week over the academic year. Follow‐up ranged from up to 1 year (short‐term), 1–2 years (medium‐term) and over 2 years (long‐term). We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low to moderate across all outcome measures. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical heterogeneity. Most studies were considered to be low or unclear risk for selection, detection, performance, attrition, selective reporting, and other bias. Allocation bias was at high risk in 10 studies. The US federal government funded most of the studies.Comparison 1. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus no interventionCognitive development. There may be little to no difference in cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and no intervention at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.23 to 6.34; p = 0.04; 2 studies, 361 participants; low certainty evidence).Emotional well‐being and social competence. There may be no clear difference in social skills in centre‐based early education interventions compared to the no intervention control group at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: −0.11, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.33; p = 0.63; 3 studies, 632 participants; low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial (I² = 71%).Health development. Narrative analysis from a single study showed that centre‐based early education interventions may improve health development outcomes such as health checks, immunisation compliance and dental care (1 study, 142 participants; low certainty evidence).None of the studies reported on school readiness, adverse effects, or physical development.Comparison 2. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus TAUSchool readiness. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of centre‐based early education interventions compared to TAU on school readiness up to 1 year post‐intervention (SMD: 1.17, 95% CI: −0.61 to 2.95; p = 0.20; 2 studies, 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 95%).Cognitive development. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 9.34, 95% CI: −6.64 to 25.32; p = 0.25; 2 studies, 136 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 92%).Emotional well‐being and social competence. A meta‐analysis of 12 studies demonstrated there may be little to no difference in social skills between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.28; p = 0.19; 12 studies, 4806 participants; low certainty evidence).Physical development. Evidence from one study showed that centre‐based early education interventions likely have little to no difference in increasing fine motor skills compared to TAU at short‐term follow‐up (MD: 0.80, 95% CI: −1.11 to 2.71; 1 study, 334 participants; moderate certainty evidence).None of the studies measured adverse effects or health development.Authors' ConclusionsWe found very low, low and moderate‐certainty evidence that centre‐based interventions convey little to no difference to children starting school compared to no intervention or TAU, up to 1 year. More research, measuring relevant outcomes, conducted outside the USA, is required to improve programmes designed to meet the needs of children starting school.

show abstract

Early education of dual language learners: An efficacy study of the Nuestros Niños School Readiness professional development program

Cited by 40 publications

References 61 publications

Systematic Review of English Early Literacy Interventions for Children Who Are Dual Language Learners

Systematic Review of English Early Literacy Interventions for Children Who Are Dual Language Learners

Pedagogical conditions for the formation of senior preschool children’s foreign language competence

Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About