Professional development in emergent literacy: A design experiment of Teacher Study Groups

E

Po

AQ1

I

a

ARRAA

KTPEPPE

IQ2

i(Q3cd(ekctS

fT

ks

h0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelARCHI 768 1–16

Early Childhood Research Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

rofessional development in emergent literacy: A design experimentf Teacher Study Groups

nne E. Cunningham ∗, Kelly Etter, Linda Platas, Sarah Wheeler, Kelly Campbellnstitute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 30 July 2013eceived in revised form 26 October 2014ccepted 5 December 2014vailable online xxx

eywords:eacher study groupsrofessional developmentmergent literacyhonological awarenessreschool

a b s t r a c t

This study features a design experiment of a teacher study group model of professional development.Our goal was to support teachers’ development of the knowledge and practices that promote children’semergent literacy in the preschool classroom. Three sequential cohorts involving a total of 19 teachersin a district serving a high-need, under-resourced community participated in a year-long intervention;child outcomes were examined for 101 randomly selected preschool children. Consistent with previousresearch, teachers demonstrated low initial levels of knowledge of phonological awareness, and phono-logical awareness activities in classrooms were of low quantity and quality. Pre- and post-test analysesrevealed significant changes in teachers’ phonological awareness ability, content knowledge, and ped-agogical knowledge. Increases were also seen in the quantity and quality of phonological awarenessactivities in the classroom. Finally, the children in our sample demonstrated significant gains on a mea-sure of their phonological awareness skills and made more progress in this area over the course of the

arly childhood education. study than would be expected based on national norms of same-aged children. This work offers initialsupport for the use of relationship-based models of professional development as a means to address manyof the challenges inherent in the current early childhood education landscape. Teacher study groups offera promising means of developing a qualified, competent, confident workforce that is well equipped tomeet the needs of the children they serve.

© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

ntroduction

The early childhood field continues to advance in its understand-ng of the development of emergent literacy and language skillsNeuman & Dickinson, 2001 ). A growing body of research is dedi-ated to examining how best to support teachers in helping childrenevelop these necessary competencies in the preschool classroomDiamond, Justice, Siegler, & Snyder, 2013). Fostering emergent lit-racy and language skills is a complex task requiring strong contentnowledge, an understanding of how these skills develop in young

Please cite this article in press as: Cunningham, A. E., et al. ProfessioTeacher Study Groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (2014), http

hildren, as well as the use of evidence-based, high-quality instruc-ional practices. With the rapid expansion of pre-k in the Unitedtates, there is greater demand for responsive and skilled early

∗ Corresponding author at: Institute of Human Development, University of Cali-ornia, Berkeley, 1130 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.el.: +1 510 642 4202.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.E. Cunningham),[email protected] (K. Etter), [email protected] (L. Platas),[email protected] (S. Wheeler), k [email protected] (K. Campbell).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.002885-2006/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

childhood teachers, along with scalable, effective models of profes-sional development (Zaslow, Tout, Halle, Vick Whittaker, & Lavelle,2010).

Just as classroom learning is increasingly seen through thelens of teacher–child interactions (Curby et al., 2009a; Mashburn& Pianta, 2010), teacher knowledge and development may alsobe successfully constructed through relationship-based learningapproaches. Indeed, experts have called for a shift away fromisolated, one-day workshops and trainings as the primary modeof delivery (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008) witha movement toward relationship-based professional development(RBPD) models (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Fukkink &Lont, 2007). These more intensive models aim to foster changeand cultivate teacher knowledge and pedagogical skills withinthe context of a relationship with a highly skilled professional(National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center,2009). Limited yet growing research documents the effectiveness

nal development in emergent literacy: A design experiment of://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.002

of RBPD approaches, such as mentoring, coaching, consultation,and technical assistance in increasing teacher knowledge and useof effective classroom practices (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009;Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010; Raver et al., 2008).

51

52

53

54

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.002


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08852006

mailto:[email protected]






ING ModelE

2 od Re

afriaTmttop

Tl

lio2Popu2

k2mstimoFSwiatt

filohW

sdit&rllT&2sSoopf

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

ARTICLEARCHI 768 1–16

A.E. Cunningham et al. / Early Childho

This study is an examination of a relationship-centeredpproach, specifically a teacher study group (TSG) model. In thisorm of professional development, a small group of teachers meetsegularly with a highly trained, knowledgeable facilitator. The goals to work collaboratively toward deepening content knowledgend integrating research-based practices into teaching. AlthoughSGs have been shown to be effective for teachers at the early ele-entary level (Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010),

his model has not been comprehensively developed for preschooleachers. The data in this study are from a 3-year design experimentf a TSG model focused on emergent literacy, with an emphasis onhonological awareness.

he need for effective professional development in emergentiteracy

During the last two decades, the field of reading and emergentiteracy research has devoted increasing attention to the underly-ng, or foundational, skills that young children need to possess inrder to become successful readers (Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin,001; McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001; National Early Literacyanel [NELP], 2008). Progress in reading begins with the devel-pment of emergent literacy skills, such as alphabet knowledge,honological awareness (PA), oral language skills including vocab-lary, as well as familiarity with the written language system (Hoff,006; Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001).

Alphabet knowledge, a skill included under the umbrella of printnowledge, is highly predictive of reading achievement (Bowey,005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). In order to begin reading, a childust be able to identify letters in print, as well as their corre-

ponding sounds, referred to as the alphabetic principle. Indeed,his ability to decode or sound out words accurately and fluentlys one of the hallmarks of children’s reading acquisition. Develop-

ent of the alphabetic principle depends upon a rudimentary levelf phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Bowey, 2005; Byrne &ielding-Barnsley, 1991; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Freeman, 1984;torch & Whitehurst, 2002; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Childrenho are phonologically aware, that is, those who are adept at notic-

ng and manipulating the sound structure of language, are moreble to learn how to read. Specifically, children must first identifyhe individual sounds that letters represent before blending themogether to form words.

Beyond these code-based skills, oral language has been identi-ed as a central component of literacy skill development. Several

ongitudinal studies demonstrate the causal nature of preschoolral language skills in predicting fourth grade reading compre-ension (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Storch &hitehurst, 2002).Emergent literacy skills tend to be correlated with children’s

ocioeconomic status (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Young chil-ren from low-income families have fewer opportunities to

nteract with print (Justice & Ezell, 2001) or engage in cogni-ively stimulating conversations with adults (Fernald, Marchman,

Weisleder, 2013; Hart & Risley, 1995). Consequently, childreneared in poverty often begin kindergarten with less developedevels of alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, and oralanguage skills (Denton, West, & Walston, 2003; Hecht, Burgess,orgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2000; Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony,

Barker, 1998; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],011). Because competency in these areas predicts reading acqui-ition and subsequent achievement (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002;trickland & Shanahan, 2004), children lacking early development


f these skills are at risk for reading difficulties and lower academicutcomes (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994). Notably,honological awareness has been shown to be particularly difficultor some children to acquire on their own. Therefore, it is crucial to

PRESSsearch Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

build children’s PA and other emergent literacy skills during thepreschool period through the provision of high-quality learningopportunities.

Current classroom practicesThere is a striking absence of PA instruction and learning oppor-

tunities in preschool classrooms. In an intervention study (Phillips,Menchetti, Lonigan, & Farver, 2007), repeated observations of class-rooms in a “business-as-usual” control group revealed very lowlevels of phonological awareness activities, which occurred inonly 12–15% of total observations (as reported in Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan, 2008). Similarly, a large, multistate studyof state-funded prekindergarten programs found that only 3% oftotal daily time was allocated to letter or sound (i.e., phonologi-cal awareness) activities (National Center for Early Developmentand Learning [NCEDL], 2005). Even when teachers devote timeto PA activities, these learning opportunities do not necessarilyfollow research-based recommendations. For example, preschoolteachers predominantly use incidental and implicit methods ofdeveloping phonological awareness (e.g., reading rhyming sto-ries, whole-group clapping to syllables, and singing word playsongs; Phillips et al., 2008). Although important and enjoyable,these activities do not necessarily draw children’s attention to thesound structure of language. A more explicit, systematic type ofinstruction is indicated for building both conceptual understand-ing and sequential skills in PA (Phillips et al., 2008). Furthermore,such activities are optimally conducted in small-group or one-on-one settings (Phillips et al., 2008), yet preschool teachers oftenoffer instructional experiences only in large or whole-group set-tings. For example, the NCEDL (2005) study found that only 6%of daily time was spent in small-group contexts, suggesting thatmany teachers are missing important opportunities to individ-ualize, differentiate, and scaffold instruction in smaller groupsettings.

Current levels of teacher knowledgeTeaching PA is a complex task that involves a deep knowledge of

child development and pedagogical strategies. Content knowledgeis the most basic form of knowledge teachers are expected to pos-sess in a specific domain, such as emergent literacy (Cunningham,Zibulsky, & Callahan, 2009). Specifically, in the area of PA, teach-ers need to be aware of different levels of such awareness (e.g.,word, syllable, onset-rime, phoneme), the progression of skilldevelopment for children, and how these abilities connect to laterreading development. Furthermore, effective teachers also pos-sess pedagogical knowledge, or an understanding of how to teachand cultivate emergent literacy skills. Such knowledge involvesa deep understanding of how children construct knowledge andhow teachers can facilitate the learning process through scaffold-ing, linking formative assessment and differentiated instruction,implementing effective classroom management techniques, andtailoring instruction for dual language learners and children withspecial needs.

Developing effective professional development interventions

To design high-quality professional development interventions,it is important to review what research suggests are effectiveand ineffective approaches to engendering meaningful, sustainablechanges in teacher knowledge and practices. Although preschoolteachers have been receiving a greater number of traditional work-shop training hours in emergent language and literacy content


(Russell et al., 2007), isolated professional development experi-ences, such as one-day workshops taught by outside professionals,generally do not result in lasting change in teacher practices andstudent achievement (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Lonigan, Farver,

177

178

179

180


ING ModelE

od Re

Plfo(ogtfDF

iap(sroSvgctfftA

dt2taipapfEa

T

lpoptfwtqaatctlEtpcS

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300



hillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2011). Recent syntheses on adultearning and teacher development have identified several keyeatures of effective professional development. Professional devel-pment is most successful when it (1) is intensive and ongoing,2) includes a sequence of active learning experiences that buildn each other, (3) emphasizes specific skills and goals rather thaneneral ones, (4) provides opportunities for application and prac-ice of newly acquired knowledge and skills, and (5) incorporateseedback as well as reflection and self-assessment (Catlett, 2009;arling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009;ukkink & Lont, 2007).

Research has also indicated at least three important character-stics specific to optimal professional development experiences. In

recent review of 37 studies evaluating professional developmentrograms focused on emergent literacy and language, Zaslow et al.2010) identified common themes of “promising practices.” First,uccessful programs provide teachers with recommendations foresearch-based practices, but also encourage teachers to set theirwn goals and engage in self-reflection throughout the process.econd, the provision of instructional resources is essential, pro-iding teachers with useful, accessible materials such as activityuides, references for further reading, and summaries of key prin-iples may increase the likelihood of sustainability and fidelity tohe approach. Third, Zaslow et al. recommend establishing a “pro-essional learning community” in which a cohort of educators, oftenrom the same site or program, collaborate toward a shared long-erm goal and use each other as learning resources (Vescio, Ross, &dams, 2008).

Coaching is another form of professional development that hasemonstrated efficacy in improving pre-K and K-3 literacy instruc-ion (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009; Wasik, Bond, & Hindman,006). In coaching, a master teacher or expert works with aeacher to identify high-quality features of classroom instructionnd shift toward more research-based practices. Effective coach-ng is individualized, providing specific feedback and support tore-K teachers. For example, the Classroom Links to Early Liter-cy (Powell et al., 2010) PD program of coaching was effective inositively influencing the quality of the classroom environmentor early literacy and language development (as measured by theLLCO, 2002), as well as children’s letter knowledge, blending skillsnd print related skills.

he Teacher Study Group Model

Teacher Study Groups are based on “lesson study” groups uti-ized by teachers in Japan (Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006). Theyrovide a powerful framework for incorporating the featuresf effective professional development outlined above, such asroviding intensive and ongoing support for application and prac-ice embedded within opportunities for conversation, reflection,eedback, and troubleshooting. The TSG approach is in keepingith principles of relationship-based professional development,

hrough which teachers benefit from ongoing access to a highlyualified facilitator as well as the opportunity to receive feedback,dvice, and support from their peers. Teachers participating in TSGst the elementary school level have reported strong, positive atti-udes toward the experience of being included in a supportive,ollaborative, and reciprocal professional learning context that fos-ers knowledge of research-based strategies to promote children’siteracy development (Foorman & Moats, 2004; Gersten, Dimino,dwards, Haager, & Edwards, 2004). Crucially, TSGs increase


eachers’ relevant content and pedagogical knowledge, transformedagogical practices in the classroom, and positively influencehild outcomes (Foorman & Moats, 2004; Gersten et al., 2010;aunders et al., 2001).

PRESSsearch Quarterly xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

The current study

The field of early childhood education is shifting toward explicittargeting of children’s development of emergent literacy skills.Such skills are vital for success with later reading and writing; theymust be intentionally fostered in disadvantaged children if achieve-ment gaps are to be narrowed (Bowman et al., 2001). Preschoolteachers are greatly in need of professional development that isongoing, collaborative, feasible, and accessible, and adapted totheir unique characteristics. As part of a sequence of investiga-tions designed to examine the effectiveness of the TSG model forpreschool children’s emergent literacy development, we presentfindings from a design experiment used to show the feasibility andinitial impact of TSG training in a low-income set of preschools. Indesign-based experiments, interventions are conceptualized andthen implemented iteratively within a setting to test the ecolog-ical validity of a theory, but also to generate new theories andframeworks for conceptualizing learning, instruction, design pro-cesses, and educational reform. The designed context is subject totest and revision, and successive iterations that systematically varythe intervention (Brown, 1992; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, &Schauble, 2003; Collins, 1992).

We hypothesize that teachers who participate in the TSG willshow increased content and pedagogical knowledge about emer-gent literacy. More specifically, we predict that teachers will gainknowledge about children’s development of PA and how to supportthis development in the classroom. We also predict that teach-ers’ beliefs about teaching and learning emergent literacy skillswill shift toward more research-based principles as presented inthe TSG intervention. Moreover, we hypothesize that participatingteachers will also shift their own classroom practices, particularlyin the areas of PA instruction. Finally, we predict that children ofteachers participating in the TSG will show gains in PA. The ultimategoal of this preliminary design study is to pave the way toward arandomized trial.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted in a medium-sized school districtnear San Francisco serving a high-need, under-resourced commu-nity. The district-operated, state-funded, early childhood educationprograms serve children ages 2–5 and use household income todetermine eligibility, therefore prioritizing enrollment for childrenliving in poverty. Although numbers were not available regardingthe demographics of the children served by the early childhood pro-grams, the district’s K-12 population of English-language learnersranged from 15 to 18% during the 3-year study period. None of thechildren in the study were receiving educational accommodations.None of the classrooms in the district used a formal curriculum tothe knowledge of the research team.

The study took place over three consecutive years. Participat-ing teachers were volunteers recruited each year through contactswith preschool administrators and information sessions. Partici-pation was limited to lead teachers of classrooms serving 3- to5-year-olds. Teachers were informed by the research team thatTSG sessions would be held during non-school hours, but that theywould be offered a stipend to compensate for their time, as well ascontinuing education credits from a local community college. Eachyear, six classrooms were randomly selected from the pool of vol-


unteers. During Year 1, two lead teachers from the same classroomparticipated, making the Year 1 cohort a group of seven teachers.Thirty-nine percent of the classrooms (n = 7) were half-day class-rooms.

301

302

303

304


ING ModelE

4 od Re

fFbEeaaeyyfmTce“tc

fap4aSde1ptd(miiM

P

T

gmittcftIoooalS

iiwicwot

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427



In total, 19 teachers participated in the study, all of whom wereemale. Thirty-two percent of teachers were Caucasian, 26% wereilipina, 21% Latina, and 21% African American. A significant num-er of teachers (37%) reported speaking a first language other thannglish (16% Spanish; 16% Tagalog; 5% Visayan). Most teachers hadarned college degrees (26% Bachelor’s, 37% Associate’s), although

significant portion of the sample (37%) reported earning less thann Associate’s degree. Teachers reported an average of 9.22 years ofxperience as a lead teacher (SD = 9.14; range: 0–26 years) and 4.29ears of experience as an assistant teacher (SD = 7.52; range: 0–30ears). In terms of previous professional development experiencesocused on emergent literacy and language, teachers reported a

ean number of 34.80 h of training (SD = 60.64; range: 0–224 h).his included a variety of college-level courses at local communityolleges and state universities on topics such as “language and lit-racy for early childhood educators,” “speech and language,” andchildren’s literature.” This level of participation was representa-ive of the school-wide district teachers and thus can be consideredomparable to non-volunteers.

In participating classrooms, teachers collected parent consentorms for children. Across the 3 years, parents consented 68, 79,nd 76% for a total consent percentage of 74%. Of children whosearents consented to study participation, only children who were

years old at the time of initial data collection could speak Englishnd did not have significant disabilities were considered eligible.ix children were randomly selected from each class. These chil-ren were given pre- and post-assessments on direct measures ofmergent literacy and language. Our initial child sample included08 children; however, seven children were unable to completeost-assessments (due to family relocation, illness, etc.) and werehus excluded from the analyses. In the adjusted sample of 101 chil-ren (55% female), the mean age of children was 4 years, 5 monthsSD = 3.47 months) at pre-test and 4 years, 11 months (SD = 3.31

onths) at post-test. In total, of the 101 students who participatedn the study, 11% of the students were Caucasian, 17% were Filip-na, 35% Latina, 31% African American, 3% Asian American, and 3%

ultiracial.

rocedure

eacher Study Group contentThe current study was conducted through a 3-year development

rant funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. A design studyodel was employed in developing the professional development

ntervention. An important characteristic of design experiments ishat the initial design is flexible and amenable to modificationshrough an iterative process. As such, the materials and structuralomponents of the TSG intervention were refined and modifiedrom year to year based on feedback received from participatingeachers and an ongoing recursive review process by project staff.n addition to content related to phonological awareness devel-pment and instruction, teachers also received information andpportunities to develop their knowledge and skills related toral language and print knowledge development, two other keyreas of emergent literacy that develop in conjunction with phono-ogical awareness abilities (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &eidenberg, 2001).

During Years 2 and 3, teachers also received supplementalnformation on foundational teaching practices that are crucialn promoting emergent literacy and language learning, such asorking with dual language learners, scaffolding children’s learn-

ng, differentiating instruction, formative assessment practices, and


lassroom management. The inclusion of these additional sessionsas based on feedback gained from Year-1 participants, classroom

bservations, and recent publications emphasizing the impor-ance of the inclusion of these supplemental topics in preschool


professional development efforts (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009;Zaslow et al., 2010). The inclusion of these additional sessionsextended the curriculum from 11 sessions to 15 sessions.

Teacher Study Group formatTSG sessions were held twice a month for 2 h in a designated

room at one of the shared school sites, for a period of 7–8 months.TSGs were led by a facilitator with extensive knowledge of emer-gent literacy development and experience in preschool settings.During Years 1 and 2, the facilitator was a doctoral-level memberof the research project staff. In order to ensure that the TSG facilita-tor’s manual was accessible and comprehensible to individuals notinvolved in the development phase, a new facilitator led the major-ity of sessions during Year 3. This individual was a school districtemployee of the preschool program, with training in early literacy.The fidelity of TSG implementation was measured using a check-list of key facilitator actions, which was completed while reviewingvideotaped TSG sessions. Implementation fidelity estimates for thefirst facilitator ranged from 62 to 90% during Year 1; 71 to 95% dur-ing Year 2; and 74 to 94% during Year 3 (for the four sessions sheconducted). Fidelity for the second facilitator during Year 3 rangedfrom 71 to 92% across the 11 sessions she led.

Each TSG session followed a four-step process based onprinciples of effective adult learning: (a) Review, (b) Content Pre-sentation, (c) Practice, and (d) Preparation. During Review, teachersdiscussed assigned homework, reflecting on what worked as wellas challenges faced in implementing new strategies or activities intheir classrooms. They also reviewed a 2-page research-based arti-cle, written for teachers, as an introduction to new concepts. Next,the facilitator led an interactive Content Presentation (25–45 min),with slides designed to help build teachers’ knowledge. Each pre-sentation began with “guiding questions.” For example, in theIntroduction to Phonological Awareness (PA) session, guiding ques-tions were as follows: (1) What is PA and why is it important forpreschoolers? (2) How do children develop PA? (3) What are someexamples of evidence-based PA activities? This presentation includedrelevant research and introduced a visual organizer for teachersto scaffold PA activities for a given child, as well as the unit oflanguage (word, onset-rime, syllable, phoneme) under consider-ation. The facilitator then modeled various PA activities using bestpractices. Throughout, connections were made with teachers’ ownclassroom experiences.

The third segment, Practice, was designed for teachers to beginintegrating new knowledge into their instructional practices. First,teachers practiced a technique or engaged in an activity work-ing in pairs or small groups. As an example, partners took turnsand gave each other feedback demonstrating a compound wordblending activity called “Secret Door” in the activity, children arepresented with two images (a cup and a cake) on a folded castle doorwhich opens to reveal a compound word (e.g., cupcake). Teachersreflected on their experience with the whole group, before devel-oping a specific plan to implement the new skills, strategies, andactivities with children in their classroom, including anticipatingpotential challenges. During the last portion, Preparation, the facili-tator led a review of material (which included discussion of answersto the “guiding questions”), discussed new homework, and pre-viewed the upcoming topic. Teachers also received another brief,research-based article such as “Getting Familiar with Phonemes” toread before for the next TSG session.

Measures


Pre- and post-intervention measures were administered acrossmultiple domains, including: (1) teacher knowledge and beliefs,(2) classroom practices, and (3) child outcomes. Each measure isdescribed in detail below.

428

429

430

431


ING ModelE

od Re

T

KBinkptafcinta

P2inititrTm&

Psintw

PspeotstLwpcc

GrepGregatttdaH

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553



eacher knowledge and beliefsTeacher knowledge and beliefs were assessed using the Teacher

nowledge and Beliefs Survey (TKABS; Cunningham, Wheeler, Platas,oyle, & Schmidt-Raher, 2012). The TKABS includes items address-

ng teachers’ phonological awareness ability (e.g., counting theumber of syllables in a word), phonological awareness contentnowledge (e.g., identifying examples of compound words), andedagogical knowledge (e.g., identifying instructional strategieshat are most effective in helping children learn to attend to alliter-tion [similar beginning sounds in words]). An additional subscalerom this instrument assessing teachers’ general knowledge ofhild development was administered in order to compare changesn teachers’ levels of knowledge specific to phonological aware-ess to changes in knowledge unrelated to content presented inhe TSG. Each subscale is described in detail below and the pre-testnd post-test versions of the instrument are provided in Appendix.

honological awareness ability. Teachers were asked to complete3 items that assessed their phonological awareness ability. Tasks

ncluded six items that required teachers to correctly identify theumber of syllables in a word; seven items that involved identify-

ng the number of phonemes in a word; six items that requiredeachers to reverse the order of phonemes in a word; and fourtems that involved identifying a word that contained the samearget sound as that underlined in a stimulus word. Each correctesponse received one point, for a total possible score of 23 points.he internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was esti-ated at 0.80, indicating acceptable levels of reliability (Nunnally

Bernstein, 1994).

honological awareness content knowledge. This subscale containedix multiple choice items assessing teachers’ ability to correctlydentify definitions and examples of various phonological aware-ess terms. Correct responses were awarded one point each, for aotal possible score of six points. Cronbach’s alpha for this subscaleas estimated at 0.70, indicating acceptable levels of reliability.

honological awareness pedagogical knowledge. This subscale, con-isting of 11 items, assessed teachers’ knowledge of appropriatehonological awareness instructional strategies and their knowl-dge of phonological awareness development. Correct responsesn these items were awarded one point. Six items asked teacherso indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with statementsuch as Phonological awareness is best learned by exposing childreno nursery rhymes and songs that rhyme. This item used a five-pointikert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = I don’t know, 5 = strongly agree)ith some items (like the example) reverse scored. The maximumotential score across the 11 items was 31 points. The internalonsistency coefficient for this subscale was estimated at 0.72, indi-ating acceptable levels of reliability.

eneral child development knowledge. Teachers were asked toespond to 13 true-or-false items assessing their general knowl-dge of child development. Each correct response was scored as oneoint, for a total possible score of 13 points. The National Educationoals Panel (1995) identified five essential domains of school

eadiness: physical well-being and motor development; social andmotional development; approaches to learning; cognition andeneral knowledge; and language and literacy development. Itemsssessed knowledge of developmental milestones across each ofhese domains, with the exception of language and literacy, suchhat the scale would reflect knowledge unrelated to the content of


he TSG. Items were developed through extensive review of childevelopment research, state early learning standards, and nation-lly normed child assessments (e.g., Teaching Strategies GOLD®;eroman, Burts, Berke, & Bickart, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha for this


subscale was estimated at 0.76, indicating acceptable levels of reli-ability.

Classroom practicesA member of the research staff visited classrooms at a time pre-

agreed upon with teachers at both pre- and post-intervention timepoints. Pre-intervention observations were conducted an averageof 2 weeks after the start of TSG meetings and post-interventionobservations were conducted an average of one week before thelast group meeting. Although there were some overlap betweenTSG sessions and observations, initial meetings were focused onintroducing the concept of TGS and logistical proceedings and finalsessions were reserved for reflections and celebrating teachers’successes. Therefore, it is unlikely that participation in these ini-tial and final meetings would have substantially affected teachers’classroom practices. Observation periods lasted an average of 3 h.The primary observer for the project had several years of obser-vation experience, specifically with the Environment Rating Scalesand domain-specific instruments. This staff member was trainedon the TBRS during observations of several preschool classrooms.These trainings included sessions in which multiple members of theresearch team conducted observations and inter-rater reliabilityreached acceptable levels (i.e., >70) on all scales.

The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS; Landry, Crawford,Gunnewig, & Swank, 2002) was used to assess the quantity andquality of phonological awareness activities in the classroom. Rat-ings were based on observations of the quantity and quality of theactivities offered during a variety of settings such as circle time,small groups, centers, transitions, outdoor play, and mealtimes. Thequality of activities (i.e., developmental appropriateness, richnessof instruction) was measured on a 4-point scale (Low, Medium Low,Medium High, High) across seven types of phonological awarenessactivities. These activity types included listening; sentence seg-menting; rhyming; syllable blending and segmenting; onset-rimeblending and segmenting; alliteration; and phoneme blending, seg-menting, and manipulating. A quality composite was created byaveraging the quality ratings across activity types. Quantity of activ-ities was measured on a 4-point scale (0 activities, 1 activity, 2–3activities, 4+ activities) across each type of phonological awarenessactivity. A quantity composite was created by taking the mean of thequantity ratings across activity types. Cronbach’s alpha was esti-mated at 0.66 for the quality composite and 0.72 for the quantitycomposite.

In addition to the data gathered via the TBRS, group size forphonological awareness activities was also noted and each activ-ity was categorized as either small group (one to seven children)or large group (eight or more children). Furthermore, the amountof time teachers spent on each activity and the total observationtime were also recorded. These additional data points allowed forthe calculation of the percentage of total time teachers spent onphonological awareness. This procedure was also followed for othertypes of emergent literacy activities, such as book reading and printknowledge activities. This allowed us to compare the proportion oftime teachers spent on phonological awareness activities at pre-and post-intervention to the proportion of time spent on otheractivities such as book reading and print knowledge activities. Ifactivities focused on more than one aspect of emergent literacy(e.g., if a teacher engaged in a rhyming activity during a book read-ing session), the time was counted for each type of activity.

Child outcomesThe Phonological Awareness subtest of the Test of Preschool


Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007)was administered at pre- and post-test. Pre-test assessments wereadministered an average of 2 weeks after the first TSG meetingand post-test assessments were administered an average of 1 week

554

555

556

557


ING ModelE

6 od Re

bcsw1tcb

D

tattaacbwc

oatmwctasmtietko

loaoitiiicneiia

srIsossasi

intervention (M = 12.58, SD = 5.06) to post-intervention (M = 15.21,SD = 4.39), t(18) = 4.47, p < 0.001. For a summary of pre- to post-intervention changes in all areas of teacher knowledge and beliefs,see Table 1.

Table 1Pre- and post-intervention teacher knowledge and beliefs, classroom practices, andchild outcomes.

Mean (SD) t-value

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

Teacher knowledge and beliefsPA ability 12.58 (5.06) 15.21 (4.39) 4.47***PA content knowledge 3.16 (1.12) 4.84 (1.92) 3.77***PA pedagogical

knowledge21.16 (2.29) 24.00 (3.37) 3.69**

Knowledge of childdevelopment

11.29 (0.95) 11.14 (0.69) -0.42

Classroom practicesPA quality 0.64 (0.87) 2.28 (1.14) 4.21***PA quantity 1.67 (0.97) 3.61 (2.75) 2.87*PA small group 1.42 (1.50) 2.58 (1.98) -2.06†

PA large group 1.58 (1.61) 1.26 (1.56) 0.88PA % of total time 0.99 (1.76) 6.77 (6.80) 3.60**Print knowledge % of

total time4.70 (4.09) 6.59 (7.76) 0.81

Book reading % of totaltime

3.75 (3.35) 5.40 (6.58) 0.31

Child outcomesTOPEL Scores 86.42 (11.58) 91.99 (11.58) 5.12***

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656



efore the final TSG session. The TOPEL may be administered tohildren ages 3 through 5 years old. The Phonological Awarenessubtest includes 27 items, 12 in which the child is asked to say aord and then delete a part of it to make a new word (elision) and

5 in which the child is asked to say parts of a word and blend themogether to make a new word (blending). The internal consistencyoefficient for the Phonological Awareness subtest is estimated toe 0.87.

ata analysis plan

To examine gains made over the course of the study inhe areas of teacher knowledge and beliefs, classroom practices,nd child outcomes, pre-intervention levels were examined andhen compared to post-intervention scores via paired-samples-tests. Specifically, gains in teachers’ phonological awarenessbility, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge weressessed in addition to changes in classroom activities andhild outcomes. Cohorts of teachers and children were com-ined across the 3 years of the study. Separate analysesere also conducted to explore potential differences among

ohorts.Although we were not able to employ a comparison group

f teachers and children in this development study, we havettempted to employ indirect ways to demonstrate the poten-ial effects of the TSG on selected outcomes. For example, a

ore distal measure that was not the focus of the interventionas employed as a comparison: teachers’ general knowledge of

hild development. This measure tapped knowledge unrelatedo the content of the TSG such as knowledge of mathematicsnd cognitive and social–emotional development. We hypothe-ized that teachers would demonstrate gains on the proximaleasures of knowledge (i.e., phonological awareness ability, con-

ent knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge) following the TSGntervention that targeted these skills. In contrast, we hypoth-sized that we would not observe change over the year onhe measure of general knowledge of child development (e.g.,nowledge of mathematics, cognitive, and social–emotional devel-pment).

Similarly, we examined the changes in the amount of phono-ogical awareness activities offered in comparison to changes inther activities such as read-aloud sessions and print knowledgectivities. Although teachers did receive information about thesether important emergent literacy activities, the emphasis was onmproving the quality of instruction in these domains, rather thanhe quantity. It was not anticipated that the quantity of book read-ng or print knowledge activities would increase as a function of thentervention as these activities are often already quite prevalentn early childhood classrooms (Green, Peterson, & Lewis, 2006). Inontrast, given the research that suggests that phonological aware-ess activities are relatively rare in preschool classrooms (Phillipst al., 2008), it was predicted that teachers would significantlyncrease the quantity and percentage of time spent on these activ-ties in addition to the quality of initial phonological awarenessctivities.

For child outcomes, we were able to compare change in ourample to expected growth via standardized scores and percentileanks provided by the developers of the assessment instrument.n this way, the observed growth of children participating in thetudy could be measured against what might be predicted basedn the performance of same-aged peers in the norm-referencedample. Our null hypothesis was that children would remain at the


ame standard score or percentile rank relative to same-aged peerst pre- and post-intervention assessment (e.g., a 4-year-old childcoring at the 50th percentile compared to other 4-year-olds at pre-ntervention would also score at the 50th percentile compared to


other 4-year-9-month-old children at post-intervention). In con-trast, our alternative hypothesis was that children in our samplewould make progress above and beyond what would be expectedfrom same-aged peers over the same period of time. One caveat tothis approach is that the TOPEL was normed on a sample stratifiedby age and the developers report that the data was collected “in thespring, fall, and winter of 2004” (Lonigan et al., 2007). Therefore, itis unclear to what degree children of various ages may have beenexposed to educational opportunities. For instance, if the 4-year-9-month-old child in the above example was tested in the fall, theymay not have experienced any formal instruction in phonologicalawareness. Thus, the comparison of children’s scores in the currentstudy to these norms should be interpreted with these limitationsin mind.

Results

Teacher knowledge and beliefs

Phonological awareness abilityInitial baseline levels of teachers’ abilities to perform phono-

logical awareness tasks (i.e., syllable counting, phoneme counting,phoneme reversal, and sound matching) were quite low. Pre-intervention assessment revealed that only 47% of teachersanswered more than half the items correctly. However, by theend of the TSG period, we found that their performance hadincreased such that 74% of teachers responded correctly to morethan half of the items. This pattern of responses indicates thatoverall, teachers entered the TSG intervention with relatively lowlevels of phonological awareness ability, a finding that is consistentwith previous research examining preschool teachers’ phonolog-ical awareness abilities (Crim et al., 2008; Cunningham et al.,2009). However, paired-samples t-tests revealed that teachers’phonological awareness abilities improved significantly from pre-


†p < 0.10.*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.***p < 0.001.


ARTICLE ING ModelEARCHI 768 1–16

A.E. Cunningham et al. / Early Childhood Re

Table 2Teachers’ content knowledge of phonological awareness pre- and post-intervention.

Pre-intervention(% of teachers withcorrect response)

Post-intervention(% of teachers withcorrect response)

Example of compound word 73.7 73.7Example of onset-rime 15.8 73.7Example of blending 57.9 68.4Definition of phoneme 63.2 89.5

P

tw(it(ait(eapirt(poc

P

ogowoBtdctd

rcssc&amndomtocgi

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

Definition of phonemic awareness 36.8 63.2Requirement of a syllable 52.6 52.6

honological awareness content knowledgeSimilar to teachers’ phonological awareness ability, their con-

ent knowledge was initially low. At pre-test, only 37% of teachersere able to correctly answer more than half of the questions

and only 1 teacher responded correctly to more than 60% of thetems). For example, at the pre-intervention stage, only 16% ofeachers were able to correctly identify an example of onset-rimee.g., /s/ + ip), whereas by post-intervention, 74% of teachers wereble to correctly identify an example of onset-rime. As can be seenn Table 2, although most teachers were able to correctly iden-ify examples or definitions of basic phonological awareness termse.g., compound word, syllable) at pre-intervention, their knowl-dge of more complex concepts, such as blending and phonemicwareness improved dramatically over the course of the TSG. Byost-intervention, 68% of teachers answered more than half of the

tems correctly (with 10 of the teachers attaining correct responseates of 85% or higher). Indeed, a paired-samples t-test revealed thateachers’ content knowledge improved significantly from pre-testM = 3.16, SD = 1.12) to post-test (M = 4.84, SD = 1.92), t(18) = 3.77,

= 0.001. This suggests that teachers gained a significant amountf knowledge about phonological awareness content during theourse of the TSG.

honological awareness pedagogical knowledgeTeachers also displayed gains in their knowledge of the devel-

pmental progression of phonological awareness and how to fosterrowth in children’s skills. For instance, at pre-intervention, justver half of teachers (58%) could identify that blending compoundords is typically easier for young children than blending at the

nset-rime or phoneme level or segmenting words by phonemes.y post-intervention, the vast majority of teachers (84%) were ableo correctly respond to this question. Teachers’ awareness of theevelopmental progression of phonological awareness in younghildren is important because it informs their instructional prac-ices and how they structure activities in order to meet children’sevelopmental needs.

Teachers also displayed an important shift in their beliefsegarding the role of teacher involvement in the development ofhildren’s phonological awareness skills, representing a significanthift toward a perspective that is more aligned with research thatuggests that incidental exposure alone is typically not sufficient forhildren to develop adequate phonological awareness skills (Sulzby

Teale, 1991). For example, less than half of teachers (48%) initiallygreed or strongly agreed that “teacher-directed word play” is aore effective strategy than “allowing children to develop aware-

ess of speech sounds on their own” (16% disagreed or stronglyisagreed and 37% said “I don’t know”). By post-intervention, 68%f teachers endorsed teacher-directed word play as an effectiveeans of fostering children’s development. Notably, whereas over a

hird of teachers initially indicated “I don’t know,” by post-test, only


ne teacher remained uncertain (of the remaining who had indi-ated uncertainty at pre-test, two-thirds moved to the “agreement”roup). A major component of the TSG content was introduc-ng teachers to methods by which they could engage in planned


instruction in phonological awareness. Notably, the teachers whoinitially disagreed/strongly disagreed with the statement regard-ing a more active teacher role or reported that they didn’t knowand changed their response to agree/strongly agree with the state-ment by post-intervention (n = 7) demonstrated greater gains inthe quantity of phonological awareness activities over the courseof the intervention than other teachers. Although this differencedid not reach significance, teachers who changed their perspectiveto endorse more teacher-directed learning opportunities gaineda full point more (mean gain = 2.57) than other teachers (meangain = 1.55) on the TBRS phonological awareness quantity scale.

In addition to growth on individual items, teachers dis-played significant gains on the composite measure of pedagogicalknowledge from pre-intervention (M = 21.16, SD = 2.29) to post-intervention (M = 24.00, SD = 3.37), t(18) = 3.69, p = 0.002. In sum,from pre-intervention to post-intervention, teachers showed sig-nificant gains in their knowledge of specific instructional strategies,their understanding of how phonological development unfolds inyoung children, and their recognition of the importance of theirroles as teachers in designing developmentally appropriate experi-ences through which children receive explicit guidance in noticingand manipulating the sounds of language.

General knowledge of child developmentIn contrast to the significant gains teachers made from pre-

TSG to post-TSG in the areas of phonological awareness ability,content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge, teachers didnot display significant gains on a measure tapping their knowl-edge of child development including mathematics, cognitive, andsocial–emotional development, t(18) = −0.547, p = 0.591. This sug-gests that teachers did not make global gains in knowledge overthe course of the school year as a function of increased experienceinteracting with preschool children or some other factor. Althoughthese findings are not conclusive, it is likely that the teachers’ signif-icant gains in phonological awareness ability, content knowledge,and pedagogical knowledge were related, at least in part, to theirin-depth exposure to this type of content through the TSG.

Classroom practices

Phonological awarenessPaired-samples t-tests were used to compare ratings on the

Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (TBRS) pre- and post-TSG partici-pation. Separate analyses were conducted for the phonologicalawareness quantity and quality subscales. Due to extenuating cir-cumstances, a post-TSG observation was not conducted for oneteacher during Year 3 of the study, thus, this individual wasexcluded from analyses in this section. The overall quality ofphonological awareness activities improved significantly from pre-TSG observations (M = 0.64, SD = 0.87) to post-TSG observations(M = 2.28, SD = 1.44), t(17) = 4.21, p = 0.001. Additionally, there wasa significant difference in the overall quantity of phonologicalawareness activities from pre-TSG (M = 1.67, SD = 0.97) to post-TSG(M = 3.61, SD = 2.75), t(17) = 2.87, p = 0.011. More specifically, in thepre-intervention stage, only 32% of teachers engaged in any phono-logical awareness activities at all during the observation period,with number of activities offered ranging from 0 to 2. In contrast, atpost-intervention, 83% of teachers offered phonological awarenessactivities in their classroom, with the number of activities offeredranging from zero to seven. In terms of time spent on phonologicalawareness activities, at pre-intervention, teachers spent an averageof less than 2 min on phonological awareness activities (M = 1.74,


SD = 3.20), whereas at post-intervention, teachers spent an averageof nearly 13 min on phonological awareness activities (M = 12.67,SD = 13.62). In order to take into account differing lengths of obser-vation time (ranging from 125 to 303 min), a paired-samples t-test

769

770

771

772


ING ModelE

8 od Re

wotr(

tAstwfaia(pato

P

arwwoSpiff(atibirtbddoa

weseadctaio

C

tN(i

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

891



as conducted to compare the percentage of classroom time spentn phonological awareness activities. Teachers greatly increasedhe proportion of time spent on phonological activities in the class-oom from pre-TSG participation (M = 0.99%, SD = 1.76%) to the endM = 6.77%, SD = 6.80%), t(17) = 3.60, p = 0.002.

In terms of group size, paired-samples t-tests were conductedo compare changes in small-group and large-group activities.lthough non-significant, there was a trend for an increase inmall-group activities from pre-intervention (M = 1.42, SD = 1.50)o post-intervention (M = 2.58, SD = 1.98), t = −2.06, p = 0.055. Thereas no significant difference in the number of large-group activities

rom pre- to post-intervention. Looking at it another way, acrossll teachers, 24 small-group activities were conducted during pre-ntervention observations, compared to 49 small-group activitiescross the entire sample during post-intervention observationslarge-group activities decreased from 30 activities across the sam-le to 24). This suggests that the increase in phonological awarenessctivities was driven largely by an increase in small-group activi-ies. For a summary of pre- to post-intervention changes in all areasf classroom practices, see Table 1.

rint knowledge and read-aloud activitiesIn order to contextualize teachers’ significant gains in the

mount of time spent on phonological awareness activities, class-oom observation data for other types of classroom activitiesas also examined. Paired-samples t-tests indicated that thereas no significant difference in the proportion of time spent

n print knowledge activities from pre-intervention (M = 4.70%,D = 4.09) to post-intervention (M = 6.59%, SD = 7.76); t(17) = 0.807,

= 0.431(total minutes M = 8.68 and M = 12.44 at pre- and post-ntervention, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference wasound in the proportion of time spent on read-aloud activitiesrom pre-intervention (M = 3.75%, SD = 3.35) to post-interventionM = 5.40%, SD = 6.58); t(17) = 1.06, p = 0.305 (total minutes M = 8.05nd M = 10.22 at pre-intervention and post-intervention, respec-ively). It is notable that initially, there was a great discrepancyn the amount of time spent on various types of literacy activitieseing offered within classrooms in our sample. Indeed, at pre-

ntervention, the proportion of time spent on print knowledge andead-aloud activities was four to five times greater than the propor-ion of time spent on phonological awareness activities. However,y post-intervention, roughly the same proportion of time wasevoted to each type of activity. Furthermore, although there was aramatic increase in activities focused on phonological awareness,ther valuable activities such as book reading and print knowledgectivities were not displaced or adversely affected.

Although we do not have data to indicate what type of activitiesere displaced, research indicates that large proportions of time in

arly childhood classrooms are often spent in activities such as tran-itioning between activities, cleaning-up, using the bathroom, andating (Early et al., 2010). It is possible that teachers were able topply some of the classroom management strategies they learneduring the intervention to more efficiently manage their time in thelassroom and incorporate phonological awareness activities intoheir daily routine (e.g., using a phonological awareness game as

transition activity to call children to get ready for snack or play-ng a phonological awareness game as children wait in line to goutside).

hild outcomes

Children’s scores on the TOPEL—Phonological Awareness sub-


est indicated that at pre-intervention, half of children (50.5%, = 51) had scores at or below 1 SD below the mean on the TOPEL

i.e., had a standardized score of 85 or lower). However, at post-ntervention, only 31.7% of children (N = 32) had scores at or lower


than 1 SD below the mean. A chi-square test indicated that thisdifference was statistically significant �2(1) = 5.38, p < 0.001. Theeffect size for this finding (� = 0.27) was small, but approach-ing a moderate magnitude (Cohen, 1988). Paired-sample t-testscomparing pre- and post-test standardized TOPEL scores indi-cated that children’s phonological awareness abilities improvedsignificantly from pre-TSG implementation (M = 86.42, SD = 11.58)to post-TSG implementation (M = 91.99, SD = 11.58); t(100) = 5.12,p < 0.001. Compared to national norms, this mean change repre-sents a movement from the 23rd percentile to the 34th percentile.For a summary of pre- to post-intervention changes in child out-comes, see Table 1.

Comparison of cohorts

In order to compare potential differences between cohorts thatmay have occurred because of differing levels of initial skills andpractices upon entry to the intervention, or as a result of themodifications made to the TSG curriculum as a part of the devel-opment process (e.g., addition of foundational teaching practicessessions), a series of one-way between subjects analyses of variance(ANOVAs) were conducted. First, in order to determine whethercohorts differed on initial baseline measures, ANOVAs were con-ducted on all pre-test measures of teacher, classroom, and childoutcomes, with cohort year as the grouping variable. No signif-icant differences were found between cohorts. Second, in orderto examine whether cohort membership was differentially associ-ated with gains made during the intervention period, ANOVAs wereconducted using change scores (i.e., post-intervention score–pre-intervention score) as the dependent variable. No significantresults were indicated, except for child outcome change scores,F(2,16) = 5.63, p = 0.014. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSDtest revealed a significant difference between child gains dur-ing Year 2 (M = 1.69, SD = 3.19) and Year 3 (M = 9.52, SD = 5.62),p = 0.011. Gains in Year 1 (M = 5.91, SD = 2.97) were not significantlydifferent from Years 2 or 3.

Discussion

Our study focused on evaluating the effects of a TSG model ofprofessional development designed to support teachers in foster-ing preschool children’s development in emergent literacy skills.Our initial evidence suggests that TSGs may be a promising wayto engender meaningful changes in teacher knowledge and beliefs,classroom practices, and child outcomes. In our work, we are seek-ing to understand the mechanisms through which these changesoccur. Thus, our aim is to provide an in-depth examination of thekey features of the current TSG model to inform future professionaldevelopment efforts.

Initial evidence of the effectiveness of emergent literacy TeacherStudy Groups

Changes in teacher knowledgePrior to participating in the TSG, teachers in our sample demon-

strated relatively low levels of phonological awareness ability,content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge. This is consistentwith previous researchers’ reports that early childhood educa-tors generally lack a sophisticated understanding of phonologicalawareness, its developmental trajectory, and how to effectivelysupport children’s phonological awareness in a developmentallyappropriate fashion (Crim et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2009;


Dickinson & Brady, 2005). However, over the course of the TSGintervention, teachers demonstrated significant growth in all areasof phonological awareness ability and knowledge. Indeed, teach-ers’ own improved ability to perform phonological awareness tasks

892

893

894

895


ING ModelE

od Re

tdiepwc

kipkam(tttwcrc

C

aFlanotdittoawptwis

ttkfiiSnvvimpAOpdhuaws

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019



hemselves likely allowed them to be more effective in helping chil-ren notice and manipulate the sounds of language. During exit

nterviews, many teachers remarked upon their increased knowl-dge of phonological awareness and how it changed their teachingractices. For example, one teacher said, “I am more willing to playith words and sounds with children because I feel much more

onfident in my own ability to hear and understand phonemes.”It appears that teachers’ significant growth in their content

nowledge of phonological awareness provided them with a mean-ngful knowledgebase and framework to guide their instructionallanning and implementation. Moreover, teachers expanded theirnowledge of effective pedagogical strategies and demonstratedn observable and marked shift from endorsing a more “hands-off”aturational approach to cultivating phonological awareness skills

e.g., “allowing children to develop awareness of speech sounds onheir own”) to an explicit and reliable recognition of the impor-ance of providing children with specific, structured opportunitieso experiment with the sounds of language. Such strategies, inhich the teacher takes an active role in intentionally drawing

hildren’s attention to the sounds of speech, are consistent withesearch demonstrating the most effective practices in phonologi-al awareness instruction (Phillips et al., 2008).

hanges in classroom practiceParallel to teachers’ gains in phonological awareness knowledge

nd ability, shifts in their behaviors in the classroom also occurred.or example, teachers greatly increased the presence of phono-ogical awareness activities in the classroom, initially devoting anverage of less than 1% of observed time to phonological aware-ess activities, but by post-intervention engaging in an averagef nearly 7% of observed time in phonological awareness activi-ies, a level that is similar to the amount of time teachers wereevoting to other important learning activities such as book read-

ng and print knowledge activities. Most importantly, not only dideachers increase the quantity of phonological awareness activi-ies, but they also increased the quality of the activities they wereffering in their classrooms, including offering more small-groupctivities. However, it should be noted that classroom observationsere only conducted at two time points during the study—pre- andost-intervention—making it difficult to characterize the nature ofhe change in instructional practices. Future studies may examinehether improvements happen gradually over the course of the

ntervention or whether there are spikes in practices (e.g., after apecific session) that may or may not be maintained over time.

Providing children with many engaging and high-quality oppor-unities in preschool to become familiar with and manipulatehe sound structure of language helps prepare them to meetindergarten expectations and allows them to maximally bene-t from the future instruction in reading they will receive. This

s perhaps best illustrated by examining the Common Core Statetandards for kindergarten in the area of phonological aware-ess. Such skills as “isolating and pronouncing the initial, medialowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme (consonant-owel-consonant, or CVC) words” and “Adding or substitutingndividual sounds (phonemes) in simple, one-syllable words to

ake new words” play a prominent role in the Foundations com-onent of the English Language Arts Standards (National Governorsssociation Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State Schoolfficers, 2010). Children who have been exposed to a well-designedrogram of instruction in preschool that takes into account theevelopmental progression of phonological awareness skills andas provided them with multiple opportunities to practice manip-


lating the sounds of language at more basic levels of phonologicalwareness will have more familiarity with these types of tasks andill likely have in place the critical foundational skills that will

caffold their development as they move on to the next levels of


challenge in the developmental progression. In contrast, childrenwho have not had these experiences in a preschool setting willlikely need to first master manipulating the more basic levels beforemoving on to meet the kindergarten expectations.

Changes in child outcomesThe increase in high-quality phonological awareness activities

offered by the teachers in our study likely contributed to the sig-nificant gains children made over the course of the intervention.Looking at it another way, whereas initially 50% of our samplescored a standard deviation or lower, by post-intervention, this pro-portion had decreased to only 32% of children. This proportion ismuch closer to the 16% of children that would be expected to scorea full standard deviation or more below the mean in a normallydistributed sample. However, it should be noted that the lack of acontrol group precludes any definitive statements about the effectsof the TSG on child outcomes. Another possibility is that, giventhat participating classrooms served predominantly low-incomechildren, their low initial phonological awareness scores and sub-sequent improvements may have represented a regression to themean.

Although it is possible that the improvement in children’s scoresrepresent a regression to the mean, it is likely that without theTSG intervention, teachers would have continued exposing theirchildren to minimal phonological awareness activities in theirclassroom, thus providing little opportunity for children to buildtheir skills in this area. Thus, it is also possible that large numbersof children in our sample who began the year behind develop-mental expectations for phonological awareness skill would haveremained on this trajectory, prepared to enter kindergarten withlarge amounts of ground to gain in order to catch up to peers.

When examining the difference across cohorts in child out-comes, it may be that the smaller gains during Year 2 are relatedto some of the organizational changes made to the TSG curriculumas part of the development process. For example, during Year 1, sixsessions were devoted to phonological awareness content. DuringYear 2, the number of sessions devoted to phonological awarenesscontent was decreased to three in order to provide teachers withmore information on topics such as classroom management andworking with dual language learners. Some of the phonologicalawareness content, such as focusing on sentence-level phonolog-ical awareness, was cut and extensive review of the phonologicalawareness continuum was combined into other sessions. DuringYear 3, although the number of sessions devoted solely to phono-logical awareness was increased to 4, phonological awarenesscontent was also more thoroughly integrated into supplemen-tal sessions. For example, the concepts of formative assessmentand differential instruction were introduced within the contextof phonological awareness. Teachers were asked to practice theseinstructional strategies by assessing children’s progress acrossthe continuum of phonological awareness and planning activitiesbased on children’s differing ability levels. Although significant dif-ferences were not seen in teacher knowledge or classroom practicesacross cohorts, gains for teachers in Year 2 were smallest in both ofthese domains. It is hypothesized that the smaller dose of phonolog-ical awareness content in Year 2 may have contributed to smallergains in knowledge and practice, which in turn, may have translatedinto smaller gains in children’s phonological awareness skills.

Identifying active ingredients in effective professionaldevelopment


Through the process of creating and implementing this profes-sional development program, we realized that there were manysimilarities between what teachers were learning about teach-ing children and how they were learning it, that is, we identified

1020

1021

1022

1023


ING ModelE

1 od Re

mpsaeeeepa&wiotffiic

irtswttiisIeatmtgwpwdte

siSauntctwAia

ashdtkt

1024

1025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148


0 A.E. Cunningham et al. / Early Childho

any common features of how children’s learning is optimally sup-orted in the classroom and how teachers’ learning is optimallyupported in a professional development context. For example, justs teacher–child relationships are integral to children’s learningxperiences (Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009b; Mashburnt al., 2008), a key feature of our intervention was providing teach-rs with access to a facilitator who scaffolds their learning in annvironment that fostered trust, development, and mutual sup-ort. Scaffolding is a temporary support structure around a learner’sttempts to understand new ideas and complete new tasks (Ninio

Bruner, 1978). The TSG model supports teacher scaffolding theay educators imagine we want teachers to scaffold children. Dur-

ng exit interviews, many teachers remarked on the importancef the facilitator in their learning experience. For example, oneeacher commented, “It was so important that our facilitator wasriendly, comfortable, and didn’t show superiority. Even thoughacilitators might have all this knowledge, they’re not just the facil-tator, they’re one of the group.” Other teachers commented on themportance of creating an atmosphere where questions are wel-ome.

Similarly, just as peer relationships among children are a crit-cal ingredient to classroom climate and learning processes, theelationships that develop among participating teachers are impor-ant mechanisms of change and development. Because of theirchedules and long hours, early childhood teachers are frequentlyithout opportunities to meet and collaborate with peers. Due to

his isolation, they lose opportunities to confer with colleagueso seek new solutions to problems or fresh ways of implement-ng curriculum. The TSG offered a supportive, collaborative contextn which teachers could offer feedback, engage in joint problem-olving, and draw from each other’s experience and expertise.ndeed, this was a common theme that emerged during teach-rs’ exit interviews. For example, one teacher commented, “Well kind of related in a way . . . it was funny because we were allhe same. It was like no one was better than anyone else. It didn’t

atter if you had a certain degree or had been teaching for a longerime. You know, it brought us all together with one perspective andoal.” This teacher’s perceptions are particularly notable given theide range in education and years of experience within the sam-le of participating teachers. Bringing together groups of teachersith diverse backgrounds and experiences appeared to generateynamic conversations and learning opportunities through whicheachers could benefit from a wide range of experiences and knowl-dge while also feeling a sense of community and relatedness.

Within the TSG, we encouraged teachers to engage in moremall-group activities rather than large-group or circle time activ-ties in order to maximally scaffold and individualize instruction.imilarly, we found that conducting professional development with

small group of teachers over an extended period of time alloweds to accomplish much more in terms of meeting the individualeeds of our teachers and ensuring their understanding of the con-ent. Indeed, a particularly powerful moment was when one teacherompared the sense of community and learning she felt in the TSGo the feeling of large, workshop style professional developmenthere she often felt lost and anonymous in a crowded setting.nother teacher reflected, “I wonder if that’s how children feel dur-

ng circle time,” highlighting the parallels in best practices in adultnd child learning communities.

Finally, just as children need to construct knowledge in a deepnd meaningful way through a thoughtfully designed learningequence, we found that teachers were better able to implementigh-quality classroom practices and meet the needs of their stu-


ents when they engaged in a series of active learning experienceshat simultaneously emphasized both content and pedagogicalnowledge. Many research-based curricula give teachers the whato do, but often neglect to provide the why or how—the critical


background knowledge needed for effective teaching. Conversely,some educational or training experiences may provide teach-ers with background knowledge, for example, emphasizing thatphonological awareness is predictive of later reading success, butmay neglect to provide guidance on pedagogical strategies thatteachers may transport to the classroom. The TSG not only providedteachers with the background knowledge of how phonologicalawareness develops in young children and how it supports laterreading development, but also offered useful, accessible materi-als for teachers in the form of classroom activities and formativeassessment tools. Teachers used these resources through an iter-ative process of practicing activities, implementing them in theclassroom, and then engaging in self-reflection and debriefing asa TSG group, thus building a deep understanding of the what, how,and why of phonological awareness instruction.

The current expansion of public funding for high-qualitypreschool necessitates a substantial increase in well-trainedpreschool teachers (Strong Start for America’s Children Act, 2013).The formation of more coherent early education systems at thestate level, often in partnership with elementary schools, willprovide greater organizational capacity for offering in-service pro-fessional development models such as the TSG. Teachers or districtcoaches who receive training through Early Reading First could betapped to serve as facilitators. In fact, one of the two facilitatorsin the present study was a district literacy coach. Twice-monthlysessions, on a year-long or semester-long basis, could be held inan existing site, such as a classroom or school library, either afterschool or Saturdays.

Clearly, a substantial commitment of valuable teacher time andlimited financial resources is required to sustain this type of pro-fessional development. As compensation for teachers, continuingeducation or college credits, and/or financial reimbursement, canbe provided. Each of the 19 preschool teachers involved in this studyreceived three to four units of community college credit, as well asmodest financial remuneration. We note that this outlay representsa lower-cost investment than the substantial costs associated withraising mandated standards of educational attainment for earlycare and education teachers (i.e., sending many current teachersback to school and/or allocating resources to attract and retainteachers who have the necessary qualifications; Barnett, 2011).Similarly, although a TSG model may require a greater commitmentof time and resources than does a traditional one-day workshopmodel of professional development, we believe that the return oninvestment in terms of teacher growth and associated outcomescould be far greater.

Limitations and future directions

One of our primary purposes was to develop an intensive modelof professional development designed to promote teacher growthand reflective change in their practices. To this end, we utilized adesign-based research methodology, which allowed for the con-tent and structure of the intervention to be modified in response toparticipant feedback and observations made by the research team.As such, although the continual review and revision of the inter-vention resulted in a more comprehensive and fine-tuned productby the end of the third year of the study, this process had impli-cations for the evaluative component of the study, namely thateach cohort received a slightly different version of the intervention.Furthermore, as in all research, limited resources forced a num-ber of tradeoffs. Rather than conduct a true experimental study


with a control group using the curriculum that was available dur-ing the first year of the study, we opted for a research design thatemphasized the continuous evaluation and refinement of the TSGintervention.

1149

1150

1151

1152


ING ModelE

od Re

otattmpiakttpkR

C

sddtiriswtsr&ri1rpikopoct

pkgossbow

UQ4

A

Q5So

2

• Peppermint• I don’t know

25. Which of the following are examples of an onset-rime?

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251



Future research could delineate whether certain characteristicsf teachers, students, and classrooms—or of program implementa-ion per se—moderate program effectiveness. For example, within

larger sample, it would be possible to determine whether fac-ors such as teacher education or years of experience influencehe effect of the intervention on outcomes. Child characteristics

ay also moderate the effects of the TSG. For instance, teacherarticipation in the study may affect children who speak English

n the home differently than children who do not. Furthermore,lthough the current study found evidence of gains across teachernowledge, classroom practices, and child outcomes, future inves-igations should address the specific linkages between changes inhese domains within the context of a TSG intervention. For exam-le, there is mixed evidence regarding whether increases in teachernowledge translate directly into child outcomes (Carlisle, Kelcey,owan, & Phelps, 2011; Fukkink & Lont, 2007).

onclusion

The “achievement gap” between children of more advantagedocioeconomic status and their less privileged peers is most ofteniscussed as it pertains to elementary school education as stan-ardized tests paint the stark contrast in achievement betweenhese two groups. However, as the significant number of childrenn our sample already demonstrating skill deficits indicates, theoots of the achievement gap are in place well before formal read-ng instruction even begins. Unfortunately, we know that literacykills build upon each other in a snowballing fashion and childrenho start out with stronger initial foundational reading skills tend

o build their abilities at a faster rate, causing those with weakerkills to fall farther and farther behind. This phenomenon is ofteneferred to as the “Matthew Effect” (Stanovich, 1986; Walberg

Tsai, 1983). Given that children’s emergent literacy levels areelatively malleable during the early years but become increas-ngly stable over time (Entwistle & Hayduck, 1988; Lonigan et al.,998), it is particularly important to provide children from under-esourced backgrounds access to high-quality emergent literacyrograms. The typically low levels of education and knowledge seen

n the population of early childhood educators—particularly in theey area of phonological awareness—suggest the current systemf pre-service and in-service training is insufficient for providingreschool teachers with the knowledge and skills they require inrder to promote the foundational emergent literacy skills in younghildren, particularly preschoolers in under-resourced communi-ies.

Findings of the current study suggest that a TSG model ofrofessional development can support teachers in developing thenowledge and skills they need to effectively promote key emer-ent literacy skills in preschool children. TSGs offer a feasible meansf further preparing teachers beyond what they have learned pre-ervice, creating networks of support, and allowing teachers tohare knowledge and resources as a community. This relationship-ased style of professional development is a promising meansf developing a qualified, competent, confident workforce that isell-equipped to meet the needs of the children they serve.

ncited references

Smith et al. (2002) and Torgesen et al. (1994).

cknowledgements


This research was supported by the Institute of Educationciences, U.S. Department of Education, through the Goal 2 Devel-pment & Innovation Grant R305A090183 to PI Anne Cunningham,


University of California, Berkeley. The opinions expressed are thoseof the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Depart-ment of Education. We gratefully acknowledge the participation ofJanie Vranicar-Lewis, Anna Kim, Elif Kalkan, the preschool teachers,administrators, and children, as well as the numerous contributionsof research assistants. Special thanks to Chen Yi-Jui for her carefuleditorial contribution.

Appendix.

Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs Survey (Form A)

Count the number of simple speech sounds you hear in eachof the words below. Then circle the number of sounds you hear.Please do this for every word listed. For example, cat has threesounds, /c/ /a/ /t/.

1. bit a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six2. fraught a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six3. tie a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six4. post a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six5. couch a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six6. shipping a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six7. exit a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

Say each of the following words out loud. Then reverse the orderof the sounds, and say the new English word that results. ON THISFORM please write the new word with its conventional (correct)English spelling. (Do this for every word.) (Ex. age → jay)

8. ice sigh9. tub but10. face safe11. checks sketch12. judge judge13. meat team

For each word on the left below, circle the number of syllables.For example, elephant has 3 syllables: /el/ /e/ /phant/

14. salamander a. three syllables b. four c. five d. six e. seven15. finger a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five16. biodegradable a. four syllables b. five c. six d. seven e. eight17. pies a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five18. attached a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five19. koala a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five

Read the first word in each line, and note the sound that isrepresented by the underlined letter or letters. Then circle theword to the right that contains the same sound.

20. paper a. village b. father c. pal d. sleigh21. return a. smashed b. settle c. listen d. castle22. even a. phrase b. soften c. of d. find23. nurse a. our b. percent c. poor d. near

Please check the options that best answers the question.

4. Which of the following are examples of a compound word?(Check all that apply.)

• Government• Eyeball• Psychology• Teddy Bear


(Check all that apply.)• /s/ + lip• sip, rip, dip• sip, sock, sister

1252

1253

1254


ING ModelE

1 od Re

2

2

2

2

3

3

3 structured wordplay is

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

1338

1339

1340

1341

1342

1343

1344

1345

1346

1347

1348

1349

1350



• /s/ + ip• ele + phant• I don’t know

6. Which of the following are examples of blending? (Check allthat apply.)

• /s/ + un becomes sun• popcorn without corn becomes pop• bat becomes /b/ + at• butterfly becomes butter + fly• mice without /m/ becomes ice• I don’t know

Please check only one option that best answers the question.7. A phoneme refers to: (Check only one.)• a single letter.• a single speech sound.• a single unit of meaning.• a grapheme.• I don’t know

8. Phonemic awareness is: (Check only one.)• the same as phonological awareness.• the understanding of how letters and sounds are put together

to form words.• the ability to break down and manipulate the individual

sounds in spoken language.• the ability to use sound-symbol correspondences to read new

words.• I don’t know

9. A requirement of a syllable is that: (Check only one.)• it contain at least one consonant letter• it contain no more than one vowel letter• it be a pronounceable unit• it contain no more than one speech sound• I don’t know

Please check the option(s) that best answers the question.0. You are trying to teach your preschool students to notice

alliteration (similar beginning sounds in words such aswith the spoken words sun, city, sand). Which instructionalstrategies below would be an effective way to help your stu-dents master alliteration? (Check all that apply)

• Use cards with pictures of things on one side and the letter thatstarts that thing on the other side (for example, F for fan, S forsun).

• Practice sorting pictures of objects according to their begin-ning sound.

• Have children find the letter “S” in words written in the class-room.

• Play “I Spy” and have the children find all the objects in theroom that start with a certain sound.

• I don’t know1. Which of the following will typically be easiest for young

children to do? (Check only one)• When you say, “r” [pause] “ain” and ask what word you made,

they say “rain.”• When you say “rain” [pause] “bow” and ask what big word

you made, they say “rainbow.”• When you say the word “rain” and ask what sounds are in the

word, they say• “/r/ /ay/ /n/.”• When you say the sounds “/r/ /ay/ /n/” and ask what word you

made, they say you made the word “rain.”• I don’t know

2. Select the sequence below that correctly orders these skillsfrom easiest to hardest for 4-year-old children: (Check the


correct sequence below)A. Blending “foot” and “ball” into “football”B. Blending /p/ /i/ /g/ into “pig”


C. Blending /cr/ and /eam/ into “cream”• B, C, A• A, B, C• B, A, C• A, C, B• I don’t know

33. When teaching phonological awareness to 4-year-old chil-dren, in which order would you introduce the followingconcepts? (Check the correct sequence below).

A. Separating words like “popcorn” into “pop” and “corn”B. Blending words like “pop” and “corn” into “popcorn”C. Deleting the word “pop” from “popcorn” to make “corn”• A, B, C• B, C, A• A, C, B• B, A, C• I don’t know

34. Teaching preschool children to be sensitive to and manip-ulate the sounds in spoken language is most helpful withacquiring which of the following skills? (Check only one)

• knowledge of letter names• reading motivation• increased vocabulary• reading comprehension• sounding out words• I don’t know

For each of the statements below, please indicate how much youagree or disagree with the statement.

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Stronglyagree

35. Allowingchildren todevelopawareness ofspeech soundson their own ismore supportiveof their literacydevelopmentthanteacher-directedword play.

5 4 3 2 1

36. Teachersshould regularlyassess children’sliteracy andlanguagedevelopment.(reverse score)

5 4 3 2 1

37. Youngchildren’s abilityto manipulatespeech soundswill affect theirability to learn toread and spell inthe early years.(reverse score)

5 4 3 2 1

38. Devotingspecific time toexplicit and

5 4 3 2 1


developmentallyappropriate.(reverse score)


ING ModelE

od Re

m

T

td/

1234567

SoFE

1351

1352

1353

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1360

1361

1362

1363

1364

1365

1366

1367

1368

1369

1370

1371

1372

1373

1374

1375

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1382

1383

1384

1385

1386

1387

1388

1389

1390

1391

1392

1393

1394

1395

1396

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

1410

1411

1412

1413

1414

1415



Stronglydisagree


39. Phonologicalawareness is bestlearned bymerely exposingchildren tonursery rhymesand songs thatrhyme.

5 4 3 2 1

40. Directinstruction inhow tomanipulatespeech soundsshould not bedone untilelementaryschool.

5 4 3 2 1

For each of the items below, please indicate whether the state-ent is true or false (circle one).

A. Four-year-olds cannot speak incomplete 4–6 word sentences.

True False

B. Five-year-olds cannot understand thatothers may think differently or havedifferent beliefs than themselves.

True False

C. By age five, children can sort objects bymore than one feature.

True False

D. Children’s language production skillsare more advanced than their languagecomprehension skills.

True False

E. Children are unable to expressempathy toward their peers atfour-years of age.

True False

F. Four-year-olds can use language tocompare and describe objects.

True False

G. Four-year-old children cannotrecognize and name seven or morecolors.

True False

H. Four-year-old children can solvejigsaw puzzles with 6 – 12 pieces.

True False

I. By age five, children can tell a narrativeor story in sequence.

True False

J. Four-year- olds can match withone-to-one correspondence sevenforks to seven plates.

True False

K. Five-year-old children can makepredictions (e.g., do all apples haveseeds, which objects might float in thewater table).

True False

L. Four-year-olds can use props torepresent real objects (like a block as aphone).

True False

M. Five-year-old children are unable towrite their name.

True False

eacher Knowledge and Beliefs Survey (Form B)

Count the number of simple speech sounds you hear in each ofhe words below. Then circle the number of sounds you hear. Pleaseo this for every word listed. For example, cat has three sounds, /c/a/ /t/.

. pod a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. cheap a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. brought a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. axis a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. bay a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. shedding a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six

. gasp a. one sound b. two c. three d. four e. five f. six


ay each of the following words out loud. Then reverse the orderf the sounds, and say the new English word that results. ON THISORM please write the new word with its conventional (correct)nglish spelling. (Do this for every word.) (Ex. age → jay)


8. bat tab9. name mane10. coach choke11. dice side12. ace say13. known known

For each word on the left below, circle the number of syllables.For example, elephant has 3 syllables: /el/ /e/ /phant/

14. seas a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five15. hanger a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five16. viola a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five17. happened a. one syllable b. two c. three d. four e. five18. responsibility a. four syllables b. five c. six d. seven e. eight19. caterpillar a. three syllables b. four c. five d. six e. seven

Read the first word in each line, and note the sound that is rep-resented by the underlined letter or letters. Then circle the word tothe right that contains the same sound.

20. hoping a. bottle b. toy c. melon d. although21. rodent a. rigged b. backed c. badge d. batting22. breezy a. seed b. closed c. brace d. pleasure23. first a. or b. purchase c. tire d. four

Please check the options that best answers the question.

24. Which of the following are examples of a compound word?(Check all that apply.)

• Astronomy• Meatloaf• Internship• Grandmother• Apple Sauce• I don’t know

25. Which of the following are examples of an onset-rime?(Check all that apply.)

• dim, dark, daring• rim, dim, him• r/ + im/• /t/ + rim• ela + stic• I don’t know

26. Which of the following are examples of blending? (Check allthat apply.)

• pair without /p/ becomes air• basketball becomes basket + ball• airplane without plane becomes air• car becomes /c/ + ar• /h/ + op becomes hop• I don’t know

Please check only one option that best answers the question.27. A phoneme refers to: (Check only one.)

• a single speech sound.• a single letter.• a single unit of meaning.• a grapheme.• I don’t know

28. Phonemic awareness is: (Check only one.)• the ability to break down and manipulate the individual

sounds in spoken language.• the same as phonological awareness.• the ability to use sound-symbol correspondences to read new

words.• the understanding of how letters and sounds are put together


to form words.• I don’t know

29. A requirement of a syllable is that: (Check only one.)• it contain at least one consonant letter

1416

1417

1418

1419


ING ModelE

1 od Re

3

3

3

3

3

a

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

1430

1431

1432

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

1441

1442

1443

1444

1445

1446

1447

1448

1449

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1455

1456

1457

1458

1459

1460

1461

1462

1463

1464

1465

1466

1467

1468

1469

1470

1471

1472

1473

1474

1475

1476

1477

1478

1479

1480

1481

1482

1483

1484

1485

1486

1487

1488



• it be a pronounceable unit• it contain no more than one speech sound• it contain no more than one vowel letter• I don’t know

Please check the option(s) that best answers the question.0. 30. You are trying to teach your preschool students to notice

alliteration (similar beginning sounds in words such aswith the spoken words sun, city, sand). Which instructionalstrategies below would be an effective way to help your stu-dents master alliteration? (Check all that apply)

• Use cards with pictures of things on one side and the letter thatstarts that thing on the other side (for example, F for fan, S forsun).

• Play “I Spy” and have the children find all the objects in theroom that start with a certain sound.

• Practice sorting pictures of objects according to their begin-ning sound.

• Have children find the letter “S” in words written in the class-room.

• I don’t know1. Which of the following will typically be easiest for young

children to do? (Check only one)• When you say the word “rain” and ask what sounds are in the

word, they say “/r/ /ay/ /n/.”• When you say “rain” [pause] “bow” and ask what big word

you made, they say “rainbow.”• When you say, “r” [pause] “ain” and ask what word you made,

they say “rain.”• When you say the sounds “/r/ /ay/ /n/” and ask what word you

made, they say you made the word “rain.”• I don’t know

2. Select the sequence below that correctly orders these skillsfrom easiest to hardest for 4-year-old children: (Check thecorrect sequence below)

A. Blending “foot” and “ball” into “football”B. Blending /p/ /i/ /g/ into “pig”C. Blending /cr/ and /eam/ into “cream”• A, C, B• B, C, A• B, A, C• A, B, C• I don’t know

3. When teaching phonological awareness to 4-year-old chil-dren, in which order would you introduce the followingconcepts? (Check the correct sequence below).

A. Separating words like “popcorn” into “pop” and “corn”B. Blending words like “pop” and “corn” into “popcorn”C. Deleting the word “pop” from “popcorn” to make “corn”• A, B, C• A, C, B• B, C, A• B, A, C• I don’t know

4. Teaching preschool children to be sensitive to and manip-ulate the sounds in spoken language is most helpful withacquiring which of the following skills? (Check only one)

• increased vocabulary• reading motivation• sounding out words• knowledge of letter names• reading comprehension• I don’t know


For each of the statements below, please indicate how much yougree or disagree with the statement.


Stronglydisagree


35. Allowingchildren todevelopawareness ofspeech soundson their own ismore supportiveof their literacydevelopmentthanteacher-directedword play.

5 4 3 2 1

36. Teachersshould regularlyassess children’sliteracy andlanguagedevelopment..(reverse score)

5 4 3 2 1

37. Youngchildren’s abilityto manipulatespeech soundswill affect theirability to learn toread and spell inthe early years..(reverse score)

5 4 3 2 1

38. Devotingspecific time toexplicit andstructured wordplay isdevelopmentallyappropriate..(reverse score)

5 4 3 2 1

39. Phonologicalawareness is bestlearned bymerely exposingchildren tonursery rhymesand songs thatrhyme.

5 4 3 2 1

40. Directinstruction inhow tomanipulatespeech soundsshould not bedone untilelementaryschool.

5 4 3 2 1

For each of the items below, please indicate whether the state-ment is true or false (circle one).

A. Four-year-olds cannot speak in complete 4–6 wordsentences.

True False

B. Five-year-olds cannot understand that others maythink differently or have different beliefs thanthemselves.

True False

C. By age five, children can sort objects by more than onefeature.

True False

D. Children’s language production skills are moreadvanced than their language comprehension skills.

True False

E. Children are unable to express empathy toward theirpeers at four-years of age.

True False

F. Four-year-olds can use language to compare anddescribe objects.

True False

G. Four-year-old children cannot recognize and name True False


seven or more colors.H. Four-year-old children can solve jigsaw puzzles with 6

– 12 pieces.True False

I. By age five, children can tell a narrative or story insequence.

True False


ING ModelE

od Re

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

E

1489

1490

1491

1492

1493

1494

1495

1496

1497

1498

1499

1500

1501

1502

1503

1504

1505

1506

1507

1508

1509

1510

1511

1512

1513

1514

1515

1516

1517

1518

1519

1520

1521

1522

1523

1524

1525

1526

1527

1528

1529

1530

1531

1532

1533

1534

1535

1536

1537

1538

1539

1540

1541

1542

1543

1544

1545

1546

1547

1548

1549

1550

1551

1552

1553

1554

1555

1556

1557

1558

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563

1564

1565

1566

1567

1568

1569

1570

1571

1572

1573

1574

1575

1576

1577

1578

1579

1580

1581

1582

1583

1584

1585

1586

1587

1588

1589

1590

1591

1592

1593

1594

1595

1596

1597

1598

1599

1600

1601

1602

1603

1604

1605

1606

1607

1608

1609

1610

1611

1612

1613

1614

1615

1616

1617

1618

1619

1620

1621

1622

1623

1624

1625

1626

1627

1628

1629

1630

1631

1632

1633

1634

1635

1636

1637

1638

1639

1640

1641

1642

1643



J. Four-year- olds can match with one-to-onecorrespondence seven forks to seven plates.

True False

K. Five-year-old children can make predictions (e.g., doall apples have seeds, which objects might float in thewater table).

True False

L. Four-year-olds can use props to represent real objects(like a block as a phone).

True False

M. Five-year-old children are unable to write their name. True False

eferences

dams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.

arnett, W. S. (2011). Minimum requirements for preschool teacher educationalqualifications. In E. F. Zigler, W. S. Gilliam, & W. S. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-Kdebates: Current controversies and issues (pp. 48–54). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.Brookes.

owey, J. A. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In M. J.Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 155–172).Malden, MA: Blackwell, doi 10.1002/9780470757642.ch9.

owman, B. T., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating ourpreschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

rown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments. Theoretical and methodological challengesin creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learn-ing Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

yrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemicAwareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 451–455.

arlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledgeabout early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achieve-ment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 289–321.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.539297

atlett, C. (2009). Supporting inclusion through new approaches toprofessional development. Impact: Feature Issue on Early ChildhoodEducation and Children with Disabilities, 22, 2–3. Retrieved fromhttp://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/221/221.pdf.

atts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of futurereading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and itsclinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32,38–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/004)

obb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experimentsin Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

ohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ollins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon, & T. O’Shea(Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.

rim, C., Hawkins, J., Thornton, J., Rosof, H. B., Copley, J., & Thomas, E. (2008). Earlychildhood educators’ knowledge of early literacy development. Issues in TeacherEducation, 17(1), 17–30. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ816593.

unningham, A. E., Wheeler, S., Platas, L., Boyle, K., & Schmidt-Raher, K. (2012).Teacher knowledge and beliefs survey (TKABS). Unpublished manuscript.

unningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., & Callahan, M. D. (2009). Starting small: Buildingpreschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Readingand Writing, 22, 487–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9164-z

urby, T. W., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T. R., Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., &Barbarin, O. (2009). The relations of observed pre-K classroom quality profiles tochildren’s achievement and social competence. Early Education and Development.Special Issue: Data-Based Investigations of the Quality of Preschool and Early ChildCare Environments, 20(2), 346–372, doi 10.1080/10409280802581284.

urby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Teacher–childinteractions and children’s achievement trajectories across kinder-garten and first grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 912–925.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016647

arling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher devel-opment in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff DevelopmentCouncil.

enton, K., West, J., & Walston, J. (2003). Reading—Young children’s achievement andclassroom experiences: Findings from the condition of education 2003 (No. NCES2003-070). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

iamond, K. E., Justice, L. M., Siegler, R. S., & Snyder, P. A. (2013). Synthesis of IESresearch on early Intervention and Early Childhood Education (NCSER 2013–3001).Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute ofEducation Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

ickinson, D. K., & Brady, J. (2005). Toward effective support for language and literacythrough professional development: A decade of experiences and data. In M.Zaslow, & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professionaldevelopment (pp. 141–170). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.


ickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brooks.

arly, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D. C., Craw-ford, G. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). How do pre-kindergarteners spendtheir time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as predictors of experiences in


pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2),177–193, doi 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.003.

Entwistle, D. R., & Hayduck, L. A. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary school. Soci-ology of Education, 61, 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112624

Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in languageprocessing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science,16, 234–248.

Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based prac-tices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51–60.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250010601

Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and reviewof caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294–311.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.005

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Edwards, S., Haager, D., & Edwards, L. (2004). Teacher studygroups as a professional development tool for reading first: Technical report. Unpub-lished manuscript.

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010). Teacher studygroup: Impact of the professional development model on reading instructionand student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational ResearchJournal, 47(3), 694–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361208

Green, S. D., Peterson, R., & Lewis, J. R. (2006). Language and literacy promotionin early childhood settings: A survey of center-based practices. Early ChildhoodResearch & Practice, 8(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/index.html.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience ofyoung American children. Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hecht, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2000).Explaining social class differences in growth of reading skills from begin-ning kindergarten through fourth-grade: The role of phonological awareness,rate of access, and print knowledge. Reading and Writing, 12(1–2), 99–127.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008033824385

Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Berke, K., & Bickart, T. S. (2010). Teaching Strategies GOLD®

objectives for development and learning. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.Hoff, E. (2006). Environmental supports for language acquisition. In D. K. Dickinson,

& S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (2) (pp. 163–172). NewYork, NY: Guilford.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fun-damentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Written language awareness in preschool childrenfrom low-income households: A descriptive analysis. Communication DisordersQuarterly, 22, 123–134.

Landry, S. H., Crawford, A., Gunnewig, S., & Swank, P. R. (2002). The CIRCLE: Teacherbehavior rating scale. Houston, TX: Center for Improving the Readiness of Chil-dren for Learning and Education, University of Texas Health Science Center atHouston.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instruc-tional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3),3–14.

Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Developmentof phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90, 294–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294

Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). Promotingthe development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomizedevaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional developmentmodels. Reading and Writing Quarterly: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 305–337.

Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Executive summary: Developing early literacy:Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute forLiteracy.

Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). The Test ofPreschool Early Literacy (TOPEL). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.

Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Opportunity in early education: Improvingteacher–child interactions and child outcomes. In A. J. Reynolds, A. J. Rolnick,M. M. Englund, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Childhood programs and practices in thefirst decade of life: A human capital integration (pp. 243–265). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D.,& Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and chil-dren’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development,79(3), 732–749, doi 10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2008.01154.x.

McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, andpreventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-tice, 16(4), 230–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00023

National Education Goals Panel. (1995). Reconsidering children’s early developmentand learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: NationalEducation Goals Panel.

National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL). (2005). Prekinder-garten in eleven states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of prekindergarten and studyof state-wide early education programs (SWEEP). Preliminary descriptive report.Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2011). The nation’s report card: Read-ing 2011 (No. NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences,U.S. Department of Education.


National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center. (2009).Relationship-based professional development: Models, qualifications, training,and supports. Retrieved from http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/poptopics/rbpd.html

National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of thenational early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

1644

1645

1646

1647

1648


dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.539297

dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/004)

dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9164-z

dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016647

dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112624

dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250010601


dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361208

dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008033824385

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294

dx.doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00023

ING ModelE

1 od Re

N

N

N

N

N

P

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

1649

1650

1651

1652

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1658

1659

1660

1661

1662

1663

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

1669

1670

1671

1672

1673

1674

1675

1676

1677

1678

1679

1680

1681

1682

1683

1684

1685

1686

1687

1688

1689

1690

1691

1692

1693

1694

1695

1696

1697

1698

1699

1700

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

1714

1715

1716

1717

1718

1719

1720

1721

1722

1723

1724

1725

1726

1727

1728

1729

1730



ational Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief StateSchool Officers. (2010). Common core state standards, English language artsstandards, reading: Foundational skills, kindergarten. Washington, DC: NationalGovernors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers.

euman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professionaldevelopment and coaching on early language and literacy instruc-tional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831208328088

euman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. NewYork, NY: Guilford.

inio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journalof Child Language, 5, 1–15.

unnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

hillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Successfulphonological awareness instruction with preschool children: Lessons fromthe classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 3–17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121407313813

hillips, B. M., Menchetti, J. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Farver, J. (2007). Observation of literacypractices in preschool classrooms. Unpublished manuscript.

owell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010).Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on headstart teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017763

aver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Sardin, L.(2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from arandomized trial implemented in head start settings. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 23, 10–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.001

ayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). Howpsychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science inthe Public Interest, 2, 31–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

ussell, J., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, M., & Swank,P. (2007). National evaluation of early reading first: Final report (No. NCEE 2007-4007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of EducationSciences.

aunders, B., O’Brien, G., Hasenstab, K., Marcelletti, D., Saldivar, T., & Goldenberg,C. (2001). Getting the most out of school-based professional development. InP. Schmidt, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of


pluralism and multiculturalism (pp. 289–320). Greenwich, CT: IAP.mith, M., Dickinson, D., Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2002). Early literacy and

language classroom observation scale (ELLCO). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.now, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individ-ual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),360–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Freeman, D. (1984). Intelligence, cogni-tive skills and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 278–303.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747822

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precur-sors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. DevelopmentalPsychology, 38(6), 934–947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934

Strickland, D. S., & Shanahan, T. (2004). Laying the groundworkfor literacy. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 74–77. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/62115838?accountid=14496.

Strong Start for America’s Children Act (2013). 113th Congress. Retrieved September20, 2014. From https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3461.

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosen-thal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 727–757). NewYork, NY: Longman.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phono-logical processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(5), 276–286.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of profes-sional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teachingand Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing andits causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2),192–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192

Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1983). Matthew effects in education. Amer-ican Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359–373. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/61067810?accountid=14496.

Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomesbased on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Develop-ment, 65, 606–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131404

Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and lit-eracy intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 98(1), 63–74, doi 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.63.

Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experiment-ing with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. EducationalResearcher, 37, 469–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08327154

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from pre-readers to readers. In B. Susan, Neuman, K. David, & Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook


of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Guilford.Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick Whittaker, J., & Lavelle, B. (2010). Toward the

identification of features of effective professional development for early childhoodeducators. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning,Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

1731

1732

1733

1734

1735


dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831208328088

dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121407313813

dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017763


dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

dx.doi.org/10.2307/747822

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192

dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131404

dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08327154

Documents

Professional development in emergent literacy: A design experiment of Teacher Study Groups