Self-Regulation Impacts (Executive Function, Working Memory) of an Intervention Synthesizing Early Mathematics and Make-Believe Play

• In Event: Efficacy of an Intervention Synthesizing Scaffolding Designed to Promote Self-Regulation With an Early Mathematics Curriculum

Abstract

Research supports the notion that curricula designed to improve self-regulation skills and enhance early academic abilities are most effective in helping children succeed in school (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007). This study provides empirical evidence testing that hypothesis. Our hypotheses were that children in the synthesized intervention would outperform both other groups in self-regulation and in other school readiness domains.

Self-regulation is important in facilitating learning and retention, especially for children at risk for later school failure. Used as a part of a comprehensive preschool curriculum as well as a part of an early literacy intervention, scaffolding designed to promote self-regulation (SSR) through make-believe play, an activity at the core of the child-centered approach, is a strategy that has been shown in preliminary efficacy studies to improve young children’s self-regulation and academic achievement (Barnett et al., 2006; Bodrova & Leong, 2001; Bodrova et al., 2003; Diamond et al., 2007). We also examined this relationship, but in an intervention that compared the play-based approach with a mathematics intervention.

For the post-test measures, we conducted pair-wise comparisons between the three groups (BB vs. Control, BBSR vs. Control, and BB vs. BBSR) as well as a joint test of the statistical difference of the measures across the three groups. The BB vs. Control and BBSR vs. Control differences are referred to as the impact of the BB and BBSR conditions, respectively while the BB vs. BBSR difference is used to assess the effectiveness of the self-regulation portion of the synthesized intervention. Pair-wise differences were estimated using a pooled two-level HLM to account for clustering of students within classrooms. The HLM specification included two indicator variables for the BB and BBSR groups (control group being the reference group) as the primary predictors and covariates such as age and baseline measure of the outcome when post-test measures are analyzed. The model also included indicator variables (fixed effects) for the randomization blocks. We modeled these blocks as fixed (Raudenbush, Spybrook, and Martinez, 2007; and Schochet, 2008) because we will not generalize study results beyond our sample. Finally, the joint significance test across the three groups is conducted using the estimated pair-wise differences and a t-test.

Preliminary results (see Exhibits 1 & 2) show that all but one of post-program differences analyzed for the four measures were small and statistically insignificant at first follow-up. Only the BB vs. Control and BB vs. BBSR impact for the backward digit span score were about 0.2 of a standard deviation and statistically significant. At second follow-up, only the BB vs. Control and BB vs. BBSR impact for forward digit span were small but slightly statistically significant.

In conclusion, adding the SR component to the BB curriculum did not produce the hypothesized impact on children’s executive function skills. On the contrary, there is a slight probability that the BB curriculum by itself may have enhanced children’s verbal working memory skills. The presentation will discuss possible explanations for the failure of the synthesized approach to engender development of self-regulation skills.

Authors

• Carolyn J. Layzer, Abt Associates Inc.

• Fatih Unlu, Abt Associates Inc.

• Julie Sarama, University of Denver

• Douglas H. Clements, University of Denver