KIDS CAN FOUNDATION
CHILDREN'S CENTER PROJECT
2/28/07
At-risk children's combined scores surpassed the non at-risk children's scores in only one year using the Be Smart Kids Learning Process. The Brigance test was administered. At the end of the first six months, a different Brigance test was administered due to age.
To view the full report click here.
Test Scores for Experimental and Control Groups
Experimental Group
Control Group
Overall Means and Scores
* = Significant difference
Children were given 1 of 5 Brigance tests depending on age:
1. Infant Assessment (birth-11 months)
2. Toddler Assessments (12-23 months)
3. Early Preschool Screen-II for 2 1/2 year olds
4. Preschool Screen-II for 3 year olds
5. Preschool Screen-II for 4 year olds
Report on Kids Can Project for The Children’s Center
At the meeting at The Children’s Center on January 13, 2006, plans were revised from the plans developed on December 7, 2005. Due to the withdrawal of several children in the original group and the fact that the kindergarten children would be leaving the program prematurely, the following was proposed and implemented through June, 2006:
- Twenty at-risk children were chosen as the Experimental Group. Twenty-one other children not in the at-risk category were studied as the Control Group.
- These children range in age from 24 months to 51 months and will not be attending kindergarten in the fall.
- The Brigance Test scores from the beginning of the year for each group were used as base-line data.
- Each child in the Experimental group participated in one 30-minute session per week utilizing the computerized Be Smart Kids software with a facilitator. All children had the same facilitator.
- These sessions took place from 8:00 until 11:30 a. m. around the children’s schedule for lunch and other activities. Three mornings per week—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday—were needed to meet the needs of the children.
- If children are absent during their sessions, they were allowed to make up their time when possible.
- At the end of six-months’ time, the children were retested with the Brigance Test to determine if differences existed between the Experimental and Control Group.
- The original plan allowed for the Control group to become the second Experimental group, and those children would have begun participating in 30-minute sessions utilizing the Be Smart Kids software with a facilitator. Due to lack of funding, this part of the plan was not implemented. The Experimental group would continue to be the only ones receiving the treatment, and both groups will be tested again in six months to determine the differences at that time between the two groups.
- When students dropped out of the groups, no new students were or will be added.
- The facilitator was trained by the Be Smart Kids representative in cooperation with the Kids Can, Inc. representative to assure a caring, efficient individual who could encourage and motivate young children.
- Tusculum College personnel have been responsible for utilizing the test scores and demographic data of the students to compile a report addressing the findings of the study.
- Tusculum College personnel were advised that both City and County School personnel had approved making the records of the students participating in the study available for utilization in following up the project after the students leave the Be Smart Kids software program.
- The parents of the students being studied in this project were required by Holston Home to complete a parental permission form allowing their children to participate in the Be Smart Software project and the follow-up study.
- The data generated by the research should be able to determine how the scores of at-risk students participating for 30 minutes per week with the Be Smart Kids software and a facilitator (in an Enriched Environment) compare on the Brigance test with the scores of their peers who are not at risk and who are not receiving the treatment (software and facilitator in a Non-Enriched Environment). The second six-months’ test will determine the effects of the prolonged treatment on both groups and the growth patterns of each.
First Analysis
The pretest and posttest scores of the children in the Experimental and Control groups
were submitted to Carolyn Gregg and Davis Mertz in July, 2006. The Experimental group consisted of 15 students because 5 of the original students had dropped out of the program. The Control group consisted of 18 of the original students. The scores were presented to Tusculum College personnel directly from the Children’s Center which was responsible for the pretest and posttest data. The pretest and posttest scores were compared for differences, and the Means of each group were computed. These Means were analyzed by a Two-Sample Means (t test) Procedure. The test was determined to be able to show the differences between the Means of the two groups following the Enriched Environment to determine if the Environment made a significant difference in the scores of the participants.
The Mean score for the pretests of the Experimental group was 57.93. The Mean score for the posttests of the Experimental group was 85.67. The differences computed for the Experimental group showed a Mean increase of 27.733 from the pretest to the posttest (Standard Deviation = 15.674).
The Mean score for the pretests of the Control group was 71. The Mean score for the posttests of the Control group was 93.17. The differences computed for the Control group showed a Mean increase of 17.222 from the pretest to the posttest (Standard Deviation = 12.021).
When the scores of the pretests and posttests were analyzed by the Two-Sample Means (t test), the p value was 0.0429 showing a significant difference between the scores of the two groups. According to this analysis, the Enriched Environment was shown to have made a significant difference in the scores of the two groups during the six-month time period. The procedure will be continued to determine if this effect will continue through the year-long time period.
Second Analysis
The pretest and posttest scores of the children in the Experimental and Control groups
were submitted to Carolyn Gregg and Davis Mertz again in February, 2007. At this time the Experimental group consisted of 14 students out of the original 20. The Control group consisted of 14 of the original students. The scores were presented to Tusculum College personnel directly from the Children’s Center which was responsible for the pretest and posttest data. The pretest and posttest scores were compared for differences, and the Means of each group were computed. These Means were analyzed by a Two-Sample Means (t test) Procedure. The test was determined to be able to show the differences between the Means of the two groups following the Enriched Environment to determine if the Environment made a significant difference in the scores of the participants during the second six-months’ cycle.
The Mean score for the pretests of the Experimental group for the second time period was 66.93. The Mean score for the posttests of the Experimental group was 81.5. The differences computed for the Experimental group showed a Mean increase of 14.5 from the pretest to the posttest (Standard Deviation = 9.387).
The Mean score for the pretests of the Control group was 70.07. The Mean score for the posttests of the Control group was 81.06. The differences computed for the Control group showed a Mean increase of 11.25 from the pretest to the posttest (Standard Deviation = 8.821).
When the scores of the pretests and posttests were analyzed by the Two-Sample Means (t test), the mean difference was 3.25. The p value was 0.37133 which showed a difference but not a significant difference between the scores of the two groups.
When the scores of the 28 students in the Experimental and Control groups were compared over the one-year period, the Mean differences for the Experimental group were 42.929, and the Mean differences for the Control group were 27.75. When these differences were analyzed by the Two-Sample Means (t test), the mean difference was 15.179. The p value was 0.033. According to this analysis, the Enriched Environment was shown to have made a significant difference in the scores of the two groups during the one-year time period as well as during the first six-months’ period.
|
