Child & Youth Care Forum

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 367–392 | Cite as

Improving the Language Skills of Pre-kindergarten Students: Preliminary Impacts of the Let’s Know! Experimental Curriculum

  • Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC)
  • Megan Johanson
  • Ann M. Arthur
Original Paper



Improving children’s oral language skills is an important focus of educational research and practice; however, relatively few interventions have demonstrated impacts on these skills. This work makes a unique contribution to our understanding of the effects of language-focused interventions in pre-kindergarten settings by examining impacts on both lower- and higher-level language skills as well as overall language comprehension.


The goal is to assess the impacts of business-as-usual pre-kindergarten with implementation of two versions of an experimental curriculum supplement, Let’s Know!, designed to enhance three component language skills (vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, and text-structure knowledge) and overall language comprehension in pre-kindergarteners.


Eleven pre-kindergarten teachers and 49 low socioeconomic-status students participated. Teachers were randomly assigned to either business-as-usual, Let’s Know! Broad, or Let’s Know! Deep, unless they participated in a previous pilot study, in which case they were randomly assigned to either Let’s Know! Broad or Deep. The Broad version included five different lesson types, whereas the Deep version included three lesson types with additional practice. Children’s gains were assessed proximally with measures of vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, and text-structure knowledge and distally with a measure of language comprehension.


Children in both experimental versions significantly improved their vocabulary skills relative to children who received business-as-usual instruction. For comprehension monitoring, children who received the Deep and Broad versions improved their scores relative to BAU children for Units 1 and 3, respectively. Improvement in language comprehension was only found for children who received Let’s Know! Deep compared with business-as-usual.


This study provides initial evidence that the Let’s Know! curricula may serve to foster young children’s vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, and language comprehension skills.


Oral language intervention Vocabulary Comprehension monitoring Text-structure Pre-kindergarten 



This paper was prepared by a Task Force of the Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) consisting of Laura M. Justice (Convener), The Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University; Megan Johanson, The Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University; Ann Y. Arthur, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Ann O’Connell, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University; Shayne B. Piasta, Department of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University; Shelley Gray, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University. LARRC project sites and investigators are as follows: The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio): Laura M. Justice (Site PI), Richard Lomax, Ann O’Connell, Jill Pentimonti, Stephen A. Petrill, Shayne B. Piasta. Arizona State University (Tempe, Arizona): Shelley Gray (Site PI), Maria Adelaida Restrepo. Lancaster University (Lancaster, UK): Kate Cain (Site PI). University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas): Hugh Catts (Site PI), Mindy Bridges, Diane Nielsen. University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Lincoln, Nebraska): Tiffany Hogan (Site PI), Jim Bovaird, J. Ron Nelson. Stephen A Petrill was a LARRC co-investigator from 2010 to 2013. Hugh Catts is now at the School of Communication Science and Disorders at Florida State University. Tiffany Hogan is now at MGH Institute of Health Professions. J. Ron Nelson was a LARRC co-investigator from 2010 to 2012. This work was supported by Grant # R305F100002 of the Institute of Education Sciences’ Reading for Understanding Initiative. The research reported here was also supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B12008 to the Children’s Learning Research Collaborative at The Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. We are deeply grateful to the numerous staff, research associates, school administrators, teachers, children, and families who participated. Key personnel at study sites include: Lisa Baldwin-Skinner, Garey Berry, Beau Bevens, Jennifer Bostic, Shara Brinkley, Janet Capps, Beth Chandler, Lori Chleborad, Willa Cree, Dawn Davis, Michel Eltschinger, Kelly Farquharson, Tamarine Foreman, Rashaun Geter, Sara Gilliam, Miki Herman, Trudy Kuo, Gustavo Lujan, Junko Maekawa, Carol Mesa, Denise Meyer, Maria Moratto, Kimberly Murphy, Marcie Mutters, Amy Pratt, Trevor Rey, Amber Sherman, Shannon Tierney, Stephanie Williams, and Natalie Koziol. The views presented in this work do not represent those of the federal government, nor do they endorse any products or findings presented herein.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences’ Reading for Understanding Initiative (Grant R305F100002). The research reported here was also supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, to the Children’s Learning Research Collaborative at The Ohio State University (Grant R305B12008).

Conflict of interest

LARRC has received research grants from the Institute of Education Sciences.

Statement of Human Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Aban, I. B., Cutter, G. R., & Mavinga, N. (2008). Inferences and power analysis concerning two negative binomial distributions with an application to MRI lesion counts data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53(3), 820–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assel, M., Landry, S., Swank, P., & Gunnewig, S. (2007). An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 20(5), 463–494. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9039-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20(03), 821–843. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000394.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The impact of teacher responsivity education on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 20(4), 315–330. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0104).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data (2nd ed.). NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1106–1116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Coxe, S., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2009). The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 121–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2004). TNL: Test of Narrative Language. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.Google Scholar
  13. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression (2nd ed.). NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, B., Larzelere, R., St Clair, L., Corr, M., Fichter, C., & Egertson, H. (2006). The impact of HeadsUp Reading on early childhood educators’ literacy practices and preschool children’s literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental evaluation of a preschool language curriculum: Influence on children’s expressive language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 983–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer, S. H., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Effect sizes and significance levels in small-sample research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Language and Reading Research Consortium. (in press). Use of the curriculum research framework (CRF) for developing a reading-comprehension curricular supplement for the primary grades. Elementary School Journal.Google Scholar
  20. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2006). Qualitative Reading Inventory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 111–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch, J. S., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Understanding the glue of narrative structure: Children’s on-and off-line inferences about characters’ goals. Cognitive Development, 22(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 223–262. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.755591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Consultation for teachers and children’s language and literacy development during pre-kindergarten. Applied Developmental Science, 14(4), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moerbeek, M., van Breukelen, G. J. P., & Berger, M. P. F. (2003). A comparison between traditional methods and multilevel regression for the analysis of multicenter intervention studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 341–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Newson, R. (2001). Generalized power calculations for generalized linear models and more. The Stata Journal, 1(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  29. O’Connell, A. A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piasta, S. B., Dynia, J. M., Justice, L. M., Pentimonti, J. M., Kaderavek, J. N., & Schatschneider, C. (2010). Impact of professional development on preschool teachers’ print references during shared reading: A latent growth 2010 curve analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 343–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., & Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299–312. doi: 10.1037/a0017763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, M. S., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., & Tai, R. H. (2009). Depth versus breadth: How content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Science Education, 93(5), 798–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.934.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. (2014). SAS data examples negative binomial regression. Retrieved June 2014
  40. Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423. doi: 10.1002/acp.1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagoner, S. A. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 328–346.Google Scholar
  42. Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1037/a0013152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhu, H., & Lakkis, H. (2014). Sample size calculation for comparing two negative binomial rates. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 376–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and PolicyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.University of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations