A Data-Driven Preschool PD Model for Literacy and Oral Language Instruction

For Peer Review

A Data-Driven Preschool PD Model for Literacy and Oral Language Instruction

Journal: NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field

Manuscript ID: Draft

Manuscript Type: Research-to-Practice Article

Keywords: Language/Speech, Literacy, Preschool Curriculum

NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field

For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

1

A Data-Driven Preschool PD Model for Literacy and Oral Language Instruction

Introduction and Overview

Within the last decade a research base has begun to emerge that defines quality preschool

programs. In December 2010, theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start (HS) published a report that

updated the HS domains of instruction (Office of HS,2010). Early literacy and oral language

development are two of these domains. Unfortunately, many children from populations at high

risk for disabilities enter kindergarten without essential early literacy and language skills in these

two domains (e.g., Hart &Risley, 1995). This has long-lasting effects. For example, Stevenson

and Newman (1986) reported a .52 correlation between kindergarteners’ ability to name the

letters of the alphabet and their 10th

grade performance on a standardized test of reading

comprehension. According to the National Reading Panel (2000), only 10% to 15% of the

children who experience the most serious reading problems graduate from high school and only

2% complete a four-year college program.

Early childhood essential literacy skills have become more defined. TheNational Early

Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008)reported that alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and

writing/name writing are the early literacy skills that best predict future reading achievement.

These predictive skills are not only correlated with later literacy but also maintained their

predictive power after accounting for other variables, such as IQ or socioeconomic status (SES).

This synthesis, while providing critical information about early literacy skills, only partially

illuminates the crucial factors that affect early childhood literacy/oral language outcomes. Other

implementation factors that affect child outcomes include: teacher education and training; length,

methodology, and quality of instruction; and administrative support.When planning to initiate

Page 1 of 34 NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field

For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

2

program change, it is important to take into account skills/domains as well as the factors of

implementation that likely make the difference between success and failure.

Fortunately, there has been a growing awareness of the importance of good early

childhood Professional Development (PD(Buysse, Winton, & Rous, 2009).We know that good

PD should be an active, collaborative process within a classroom context (Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 1995) and that “one and done” workshops with little or no follow-up are ineffective

(Boudah, Logan, & Greenwood, 2001). There has been a national movement to provide PD that

promotes the use of preschool early intervention and addresses both the literacy and language

skills and the factors of implementation that affect child outcomes. In 2001, the federal

government addressed the importance of early achievement and school readiness by awarding

PDgrants throughThe Early Reading First (ERF, NCLB, 2001). Serving low income children,

ERF was designed to enhance literacy/oral language development implementation through

intensive teacher PD with the goal of integrating “scientifically-based reading research”

instruction and learning strategies into existing preschool classrooms. More specifically, ERF

funded projects emphasized high quality language and print-rich environments as part of a core

early literacy program and required a reliable, valid assessment system to screen, monitor and

evaluate program implementation, as well as child outcomes. Successful applicants provided a

sound plan for implementation and management in each of these areas. The purpose of this

article is to describe one ERF project’s PD model in which data-driven decision-making drove

the two-tiered model and subsequently produced significant accelerated child literacy/language

outcomes.

Our Two-Tiered ERF model was a three-year University/HS/community preschool

collaborative effort in a Midwestern urban community that took place in nine preschool

Page 2 of 34NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field

For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

3

classrooms. In our tiered instructional model, the Tier-1 level was classroom instruction (known

as universal or primary). The Tier-1 level was exemplified by effective teacher instruction in the

early literacy areas of phonological awareness and print knowledge and the active, thoughtful

extension of oral language skills. Teachers created a developmentally appropriate instruction

using HS guidelines. Tier-1 instruction was structured around the evidenced-based curriculum in

which the teacher's manual was used to purposefully plan lessons for circle, small group, center,

and storybook reading. In addition, effective Tier-1 teaching included skillful delivery of

scaffolded instruction in which the teacher: 1) modeled the desired behavior or skill, 2) provided

guided practice with teacher(s) and children practiced the behavior or skill together, and 3)

presented opportunities for independent practice in which the children demonstrated the ability to

perform the behavior or skill on their own. Tier-2 level was intervention instruction for children

whorequiredadditional support to become ready for kindergarten. Classification into Tier-2 was

determined with use of a standardized assessment. During Tier-2 instruction, teachers worked

with different methodologies for increasing intensity of instruction through interventions with

smaller groups or individuals. Through our data-driven PD model, we sought to systematically

provide all classroom teachers training workshopsbased on the evidenced-base literacy skills and

learning strategies (Abbott, Herring, Carta, & Staker, 2006). In addition, classroom coaches,

each of whom was responsible for three classrooms, spent four hours a week in each classroom

working with the teaching team to incorporate the curriculum and strategies learned in training

workshops by modeling, demonstrating, coaching, and observing. Children were regularly

assessed in areas of literacy/oral language, and the quality of the classroom environment and

teacher fidelity of implementation were also collected.

Components of the Model


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

4

Our PD model is dynamic in that the three major components: training workshops, coaching,

and data all inform each other and drive the model (see Figure 1). Initial training workshops

define the components that are to be implemented and began the instructional process of teacher

implementation and embedded coaching. Coaching reports and data (classroom, teacher, and

child) inform the process of what topics require further refining or new topics that need to be

introduced during future whole group training workshops.

Project Start-up

Setting and participants.Our ERF project took place in a county that has a greatest

proportion of families in poverty in the state and poses the highest level of risk to children under

the age of 5. In the county, nearly half of the children come from families living in poverty, 43%

of them live in single-parent households, and 34% of them are born to teen mothers without a

high school degree. On average, they enter kindergarten at least one standard deviation below

national norms and most never catch up. By third grade, fewer than half of them are proficient in

reading and math, and only 70% of them finish high school. In our ERF project, 90% of the

families were at or below poverty level.

In each of our nine pre-school classrooms, three instructional adults were present in full-day

classrooms. The model was for one teacher had a BA level degree, another teacher had AA level

degree and the assistant teacher had a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate or High

School diploma. Our experience was that many of these teachers/assistants lacked the

background and educational level to implement high quality literacy/language instruction to

preschool children. For example, during an ERF training about infusing content knowledge into

instruction most of our 27 teachers could not provide a definition of the word germinate. In

addition, past work with teachers has found that teacher knowledge of sounds and structure of


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

5

language is not easily learned and often the curricula that produce the best student outcomes can

require extensive training and literacy expertise (Moats, 2009).

Initial implementation.The complex process of implementation factors has a powerful

influence on the process of moving evidence-based research into effective instruction (Abbott,

Greenwood Buzhardt & Tapia, 2006; Greenwood & Abbott, 2001). This evolutionary process

often requires change in organizational structures, cultures, and climates as well as change in the

thinking of system directors and policy makers who focus on a process that is data driven.

(Abbott, Wills, Kamps, Greenwood, Kaufman, &Filingim, 2008; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase,

Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Prior to implementation, the ERF project staff met with

administrative staff from HS and a local preschool academy. During these meetings, ERF

components and expectations were shared. School administrators provided input into how the

model would fit within their instructional environments and letters of agreement were signed.

Both administrative organizations embraced the two-tiered ERF model and provided substantial

administrative support throughout the 3-year project.

An additional critical implementation factor was the curricula used to teach literacy/language

skills. In a study of kindergarten children at risk for reading failure, Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood,

Wills, and Veerkamp (2008) reported that students who received instruction with a curriculum

that was a systematic, explicitly taught reading curricula, significantly outperformed their

academic peers. A goal of our two-tiered ERF project was to use an evidenced-based curriculum

that included teacher manuals and materials with systematic teacher instructions. In a prior PD

project, a collaborative team consisting of project staff, local school district representatives, and

classroom teachers used a rubric of evidenced-base criteria to choose a curriculum. The rubric’s

criteria rated curricula for the level at which the curriculum was: 1) evidenced-based, 2) had


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

6

ascope and sequence with teacher lesson plans, 3) aligned with K-3 local school district’s

preschool curriculum, 4) included adaptations for diverse learners, and 5) had a parent

component. According to the rubric, the “best fit” curriculum was the Scholastic Early

Childhood Program (SECP)which became the base curriculum for our two-tiered ERF

project.Effectiveness studies of Scholastic’s preschool curricula used empirical methods,

rigorous data analyses, and have appeared in peer-reviewed journals (Hayes, Maddahian,

Fernandez, 2002; Snyder, 2003).

The first few weeks of the project, prior to teacher training, all children were assessed with a

series of standardized and progress monitoring assessments to establish a baseline of

literacy/language performance (see Measurement, Table 2).

Training Workshops

Systematic early childhood literacy and specific instruction that accelerates oral language

development is a relatively new area of instruction in many preschools. Few preschool teachers

have had formal education in implementing literacy/language instruction and of those who have,

fewer still have had the quality of their instruction formally assessed.Past implementation

research has found that: 1) a higher level of formal education is related to better classroom

quality and effective teacher behavior and has the strongest associations with children’s

achievement outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2000; National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan, 2003); 2) student demographic

characteristics are less influential in predicting achievement levels than variables assessing the

quality of the teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2000); 3) the preschool teachers’ low wages and

benefits package, which is half that of kindergarten teachers, is the single most important factor

in hiring and retaining good quality teachers (Barnett, 2003); 4) although formal teacher


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

7

education is important, improved child outcomes are tied to quality training that targets

improving teacher instructional content knowledge and quality interactions (Early, et al., 2007);

5) high quality, effective PD must have extensive support not only in instructional technique but

also in learning basic early literacy and content area language skills (Morrison & Connor, 2002);

6) achieving strong literacy/language achievement with preschool children to a large scale

requires high-quality PD to large numbers of teachers (Pianta, 2005); 7) effective PD has a

positive impact on child outcomes when training: is subject-specific (e.g., literacy and oral

language instructional content and strategies), sufficient in duration and rich in active learning

opportunities (Putnam &Borko, 2000), and includes coaching component designed to improve

expertise in instructional strategies (Neuman& Cunningham, 2009; Rennick 2002) and 8) when

the quality of preschool programs is improved, academic progress appears to be greatest for

those children most at-risk for academic difficulties (Peisner-Feinberg &Burchinal, 1997).

Teacher workshops followed a re-occurring format for each training topic. First, teachers

were presented with the research rationale for the subject and how the topic fit into our ERF

project goals. Then teachers learned information about the subject that included specific

suggested instructional implementation strategies. Next, teachers practiced these instruction

implementation strategies and finally, on the afternoon of the training, teachers worked with

project staff to write an implementation goal and to work on planning instructional activities for

the topic in upcoming weeks.

The training workshops were a mix of whole group, small group, and classroom grouping

instruction. Whole group instruction included research and instructional strategy information.

When skill topics were practiced, teachers divided up into small groups and project staff worked

with the groups to practice implementation strategies. The small groups were formed based on


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

8

fidelity of implementation and coaching report data. That allowed project staff to provide

differentiated instruction, thereby allowing some groups to practice very basic implementation

procedures and other groups to practice more complex procedures such as further differentiation

of instruction for children. Teachers met as a classroom group for goal writing and

implementation planning.

Initial workshop topics were designed to provide teachers instruction on the basics of the

curriculum, components of early literacy and oral language, and instructional strategies(Justice,

Mashburn, Hamre, &Pianta, 2008). Subsequent training topics were based on teacher fidelity of

implementation and coach reporting the specified different areas of need. Table 1 outlines the

training workshop topics our two-tiered ERF project provided to teachers each year. Workshop

topics included information on how to teach phonological skills, concepts of print skills, alphabet

knowledge skills, and story book reading. Teachers also learned about 3-5 year old child literacy

development benchmarks, how to create shorter literacy-infused transitions, how to incorporate

teacher and student directed writing activities, how to differentiate instruction using different

grouping sizes, how to implement the curriculum, how to improve vocabulary, and classroom

arrangement, and the importance of positive teacher/student interaction.Teacher workshop

training was provided by the following project staff: 1) a PhD level research staff whose

expertise is literacy instruction and implementation research, 2) a PhD level research staff with

expertise in early childhood and literacy, 3)project coaches, and 4) doctoral students with

experience in early childhood special education and psychology.

Coaching

Certainly there is evidence of increased effectiveness of PD models that utilize some

form of coaching (Hindman, &Wasik, 2008). In our two-tiered ERF project, every classroom had


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

9

the opportunity to work with a Tier-1 and Tier-2 coach. All coaches were highly trained with

experience in early childhood and with a minimum of a BA level degree. Most coaches had post-

bachelor’s level degrees. The first year of the project, Tier-1 coaches participated in 28 hours of

coach training that included the following topics: 1) literacy concepts, 2) lesson planning format,

3) in-class coaching expectations, 4) material preparation assistance, and 5) literacy instruction

based on data-based instructional decision making.

During the school year, coaches spent approximately 30% of their work week in

classrooms, which is approximately 4 hours per classroom. The remainder of coach time was

spent in project related meetings/training, meeting with administrators,parent activities,

travel,paper work, and developing and preparing teacher materials.On a weekly basis, Tier-1

coaches guided teachers through successive steps of planning and implementation to incorporate

the published curriculum plus additional activities emphasized during teacher training (i.e., more

phonological awareness, writing, extending vocabulary activities). These weekly planning

meetings included reflection on how effective the instruction and activities were for the children.

Coaches observed implementation and then used “best practice” coaching methodologies for

providing teacher team support. This included strategies in working on establishing schedules

and routines, assisting teachers with behavioral supports, and implementing the planned

activities by modeling and demonstrating techniques to help teacher-teams further refine

instruction. In addition, coaches facilitated morning and evening parent meetings to inform

parents of school activities, and ways in which they could promote language and literacy at

home. Throughout the school year, coaches kept detailed contact notes documenting teacher and

site implementation of ERF features.Tier-2 interventioncoaches worked with teachers to translate

progress monitoring data into developmentally appropriate intervention lessons that met the


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

10

academic and behavioral needs of individual children. The focus of Tier-2 support included

assisting Tier-1 coaches and classroom teachers with behavior management strategies and

providing additional instructional and behavioral support to classrooms based on need. As Table

1 outlines, each teacher received approximately 104 hours per year of PD and Tier-1 and Tier-2

coaching,

Data

Data drovethe direction of coaching and teacher training. Data was collected at three

levels:classroom, teachers, and children. Table 2 outlines the measurements collected during our

two-tiered ERF project.

Classroom environment.Farran, Aydogan, Kang, and Lipsey (2006) reported that in

classrooms with strong literacy-related physical environments, children’s engagement with

materials was highly-favorable and teacher emphasis of literacy materials was strongly

correlated with child involvement of literacy materials in the classroom during structured lessons

and free play. In order toeffectively enhance the development of children’s oral language and

literacy skills through an improved physical environment, our two-tiered ERF project: 1)

assessed the need for environmental supports, 2) during training workshops provided activities to

improve the physical environment, and 3) purchased classroom supplies based on data-driven

areas of need. Several weeks after school started, ERF staff conducted an Early Language and

Literacy Classroom Observation Tool (ELLCO) observation in each classroom. ELLCO data

provided input for teacher training, coaching activities, and for how supply dollars were spent.

During teacher training, teachers learned strategies about how to design language- and literacy-

rich materialsfor children. The focus was on enhancing the literature and print richness of the

environment by providing authentic activities and learning centers that promote children’s


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

11

concept acquisition (McGee &Richgels, 2003). Teachers learned how to create interest areas for

children that were fun and engaging and provided opportunities to learn mathematical, science,

or social science concepts. During training, teachers learned about supplemental materials that

develop children’s oral language. Teachers were taught how to use dialogic and shared reading

procedures with books in the classroom. One area that was a constant challenge with our ELLCO

results was writing. Samples of the children’s work should be hung at preschool eye level and

abundantly found on the walls of every classroom (Neuman, Copple, &Bredekamp, 2000).

During several teacher training sessions, the importance of child writing appearing on the walls

and centers was emphasized and instructional activities that promoted more child-writing were

practiced.

ELLCO scores also served as a catalyst for coach talk about the use of environmental

print to create authentic centers related to the curriculum themes and ordering materials.

Teaching teams and coaches worked together to figure out ways to infuse centers with

phonebooks, cookbooks, recipes, receipt pads, varieties of paper, and shopping lists that gave

children ample opportunity for interacting with reading and writing experiences that enhanced

language/literacy development and built background knowledge.For example, to boost

background knowledge, picture-and-word labels (theme vocabulary/classroom objects),

including words in the children’s home language(s) were created and displayed. Based on

ELLCO results, teachers and coaches worked together to create a supply list of needed letter-

learning manipulatives, books, science, mathematics, and social science materials, and writing

tools that were then purchased for classroom use. Classroom libraries were improved by the

addition of high quality children’s books depicting a diversity of races and cultures.


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

12

Teacher.Data from the following instructional supports were used to refine training

workshops and coaching activities: 1) teacher fidelity of implementation, 2) coach field notes, 3)

teacher action plans, and 4) teacher satisfaction surveys.

Fidelity of implementation is a relatively new concept in preschool classrooms. For our

two-tiered ERF project, fidelity of implementation was a measure of how well teachers took the

skills and strategies learned during teacher training and through coaching and implemented the

skills/strategies during instruction(Mowbray, Holter, Teague, &Bybee, 2003)..These

observations are critical to the PD model because research has illustrated that variations in

implementation fidelity contribute to programming outcomes (Durlak, 1998; Zvoch, Letourneau,

& Parker, 2007). Although most programs evaluate teacher performance, fidelity of

implementation is a different kind of evaluation. Fidelity of implementation allows

administrators and, in our project, researchers and coaches to observe and assess the quality of

actual instructional implementation of specific strategies to determine if teachers are adequately

planning, implementing appropriate skills instruction and having high quality interactions with

children (O'Donnell, 2008). The purpose of fidelity is to look at specific teacher behaviors that

lead to strong implementation and figure out which, if any, of those behaviors need to be

improved. It is not to determine that a teacher is a good or bad teacher. For example, part of our

fidelity tool addressed planning and material preparation. When the observation indicated that

teachers had not adequately prepared for the lesson, the fidelity provides a specific area in which

coaches and/or workshop training staff could focus to help improve instruction.

In our project, teacher fidelity of implementation was collected during a minimum of two

three-hour observations (fall and spring) each year. Prior to collecting data, fidelity of

implementation assessors achieved 90% inter-rater reliability agreement. The fidelity consisted


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

13

of a checklist of desired teacher behaviors during circle, center, storybook reading, and small

group instruction (see Appendix for a sample of the fidelity measure). In every academic area,

each teacher in the classroom was assessed individually. Teacher scores were averaged to obtain

a classroom percentage of implementation. Implementation criterion was 80% per classroom in

each academic area.During the three hour observations, assessors scripted notes throughout the

instructional time. Fidelity results were shared with coaches. Teachers received a one page

teacher feedback narrative. This narrative highlighted the observed positive good teaching

behaviors and provided several specific suggestions to improve the instructional

environment.Teachers who failed to meet fidelity criteria participated in additional training and

coaching. Research staff, coaches and teachers worked together to determine fidelity

improvement strategies. Fidelity scores were used to identify training topics in areas where

widespread improvement was needed and also for pinpointing a coach’s focus on classroom

implementation when minor changes or teacher specific behavior required intervention. Figure 2

illustrates teacher fidelity of implementation. Notice that in year one, most implementation levels

were below the 80% criteria. However, by year three averages across all instructional areas

ranged from 79% to 99% at the end of the project. Only one of nine classes continually fell

below fidelity criteria.

Coach field-notes were important data source for our data-driven decision-making PD

model. These notes informed the “big” topics that needed further training during whole-group

teacher workshops as well as identified future coaching activities. Each week coaches wrote a

narrative of events in the classroom that impacted instruction. These notes provided

documentation of the strategies that coaches used to work with teachers to improve instructional

technique and planning. In addition, coaches kept track of the weekly time spent in: 1) the


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

14

classroom, 2) traveling, 3) creating/preparing materials, and 4) project meetings and training.

The content of the coach notes were generally discussed at project meetings. Areas of needed

improvement that were prevalent across most classrooms were slated to be addressed in

professional development training. In classrooms that had reoccurring challenges such aschildren

with behavioral problems or lack of teacher adherence to implementation procedures, Tier-2

coaches or training workshop staff provided additional assistance.In addition, each coach had

digital and video cameras that were used to capture classroom activities that promote

language/literacy through environmental print. These pictures and videos were shared during

coaching as well as during teacher training.

Action plans were an additional data-driven implementation data source with teachers. At

the end of each training workshop, teachers identified an implementation goal related to the

training and created an action plan. Action plans included: 1) the instructional goal, 2) specific

steps needed to implement goal, 3) materials needed, and 4) who would be responsible for each

step of implementation. Progress on each plan was monitored monthly by coaches and a

percentage toward completion was established. The final teacher level data source was the

teacher satisfaction form. At the end of the training workshop, teachers provided feedback as to

the quality of training and usefulness to classroom instruction. Also, teachers had the opportunity

to provide written comments and these comments are used in planning of upcoming trainings.

Across all items on the satisfaction survey with the possibility of excellent, good, average, or

poor, 64% of the items were rated as excellent and 98% of the items were rated as excellent or

good.

Child assessments.All children in participating classrooms were screened on oral

language, phonological awareness, print awareness and alphabet knowledge at the start of their


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

15

participation in the program. Our project collected a mix of standardized and progress

monitoring assessments (see Measurement Table). Four standardized measures were collected in

the fall and spring each year by trained, inter-rater reliable research staff. In addition to the PPVT

as a receptive vocabulary measure, the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) was used as a

standardized measure of children’s early literacy development. The TOPEL provides standard

scores for a total Early Literacy Index, as well as for three component skills: Print Knowledge,

Definitional Vocabulary, and Phonological Awareness. The TOPEL was used to identify

children who needed more intensive instruction to improve to average range achievement.

Kindergarten-bound children who scored below average on the measure received additional Tier-

2 intervention.

Progress monitoring data were collected three times a year for child in the average or

above range on the TOPEL and at least once a month for children designated as below average

on the TOPEL. Progress monitoring assessments were short one to two minute assessments

(IGDIs and PALS) that reflected the specific-skills knowledge that children learned through

instruction (see Measurements, Table 2). Following each of the assessment periods, the

evaluation team prepared a classroom-wide record of children’s individual assessment results for

coaches and for the teachers in each classroom. These reports were used to identify the strengths

and needs of each child in the below average range and to support individualization of

instructional goals and strategies. The ERF staff also shared individual child reports during

meetings with parents to support parents’ understanding of their own child’s progress and of the

ERF program. Based on the child data, additional training workshops were provided as needed

on subjects pertaining to individualized and differentiated instruction.


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

16

Figures three and four highlight year-three child outcomes.Figure 3 reports the significant

children’s fall to spring pre/post assessment changes of Standard Scores (SS) on the TOPEL with

the subtests of Print Knowledge, Definitional Vocabulary, Phonological Awareness and the

Early Literacy Index which is a composite score of the three subtests. The red line (SS 90) was

used to individually identify children at, above, or below average and at-risk of future reading

failure. Figure 4 reports one child’s TOPEL Early Literacy Index growth over two years. Based

on the TOPEL Early Literacy Index, this child was individually designated as below benchmark

and received more-intensive teacher-taught intervention throughout his two ERF years.

Additionally, in terms of standardized assessments, there is noteworthy data from children who

received two years of ERF instruction. At the beginning of Year 2, 46% of all children in ERF

were below the SS of 90 on the TOPEL Early Literacy Index. For the children that received ERF

instruction in both Years 2 and 3, 100% of the children achieved average range on the TOPEL

Early Literacy Index by the end of their second year. That is, every single child who experienced

two years of ERF instruction in Years 2 and 3 of the project and was able to complete all

segments of the TOPEL assessment, scored in the Early Literacy Index average range at the end

of Year 3.

Lessons Learned and Challenges to Implementation

We believe teacher training workshops and coaching with literacy/early childhood

experts and sufficient data collection are all essential to make a literacy/language PD model

work. Accelerating literacy/language growth so that the vast majority of HS K-bound children

are in average ranges will require sufficient duration and strength of instruction and

administrative/system support. We believe our two-tiered PD model is an example of what is

needed to bring about such change. Within many of the current early childhood programs such


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

17

support may be difficult to implement. From our implementation work in early childhood we

have learned numerous lessons and potential solutions for these barriers to implementation.

The greatest lesson we learned was that it is quite effortful to change the way we educate

preschool children and this effort directly addresses the barriers to implementation. The greatest

identified barrier/lesson learned revolved around the understanding of the amount and quality of

literacy/language instruction that is required in order to bring children into average ranges and

ready for kindergarten. Currently, in most preschool settings literacy skills instruction is neither

systematic enoughnor long enough to make significant changes in child outcomes. In our two-

tiered ERF project, teachers and administrators committed to 2.5 hours of systematic

literacy/language instruction across different parts of an instructional morning. It took a great

deal of work and time to shape teacher and administrator behavior to accept and adhere to the

daily schedule. On a typical morning, classrooms devoted 15 minutes to circle/large group, 45

minutes to small group explicit instruction, one hour to learning center, and 15 minutes to story

book reading. During each of these instructional segments teachers had specific lesson plans that

detailed how literacy/language instruction was infused into the lesson. During the 15 minute

circle time, teacher had seven minutes to complete the greeting song, calendar, and weather. The

remaining 7-8 minutes was used to practice the theme-related oral language activity with a very

short letter recognition activity. During the small group instructional segments that added up to

45 minutes a day, children experienced three different small groups that explicitly taught

alphabet knowledge, interactive book reading (vocabulary and comprehension), and

phonological awareness/math. During centers, teachers were expected to be in centers interacting

with childrenand to behaving child-led conversations that highlighted the theme’s vocabulary,

alphabet recognition, phonological awareness practice, and encouraging children to participate in


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

18

writing experiences. Teachers were taught how to maximize instructional time by keeping

transitions between instructional segments to 2 minutes or less and to infuse literacy/language

instruction into waiting times such as standing in line for the bathroom. The tooth brushing

activity was moved to happen prior to the beginning of the instructional day or after lunch.

Between the changing of the tooth brushing routine and shortening transitions, we estimated that

approximately 45 minutes of literacy/language instruction was added to the morning’s activities.

There was a focused, concentrated effort to have literacy/language instruction happening most

every minute of the instructional morning. Certainly, one change that is within every preschool

administrator’s realm of implementation is to set up an expectation that academic instruction

related to literacy/language will appear in the lesson plan and the daily schedule and that teachers

will adhere to the schedule. Another administrative action is to work with teachers on the length

of time devoted to transitions and to make sure that teachers have materials ready for instruction.

We found these to be the biggest “time wasters” of the instructional day.

A related barrier is having sufficiently trained staff to implement instruction when

someone from the usual teaching team is absent. Currently, because of child/teacher ratio

licensing requirements, teachers are moved around from classroom to classroom to cover for

other teachers. Whensubstitute or replacement personnel are available, staff members are often

not fully trained to come into the classroom and provide literacy/language instruction. In most

cases the content for the instructional segments is just cancelled or poorly implemented for the

length of time of the teacher’s absence. Administrators might want to strategically considerthe

most important instructional parts of the dayand create back-up plans to ensure that essential

literacy instructional time has the appropriate staffing to happen every day. This may mean

dividing students into larger small groups during teacher absences. At one school with two


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

19

classrooms, the administrator occasionally filled in for small group instruction when teachers

were absent. We learned that flexible grouping of small groups and creative use of staff

resources was critical to consistent daily implementation.

A second important barrier/lesson-learned was scheduling training and coaching times.

Finding time for half to full day trainings can be difficult to arrange. When teachers are in

training, they are not available to teach. Schools have very busy training schedules for all of the

competing domains of instruction. We found that training workshops needed to be scheduled a

year in advance so that schools had the opportunity to work in training time for all domains.

There was a similar challenge for coaching. Schools were eager to have coaches in classrooms

modeling, observing, and working with teachers. However, planning time was more problematic.

Every school has planning, assessments, and preparation requirements associated with other

domains as well as requirements for providing lunch and morning breaks for teachers. Although

teachers in full-day classrooms had two hours a day during nap time to work on these

requirements, planning time was often cut short or failed to happen. Although no one wanted to

give up the full amount of planning time recommended by the coach, that was, however,

sometimes required. Coaches and administrators both had to learn to become more flexible and

to try some creative problem solving in finding times to meet.

A third barrier/lesson-learned was in terms of assessment and sustainability of our PD

model. Data-based instructional decision-making is a critical design component for tiered

implementation. For most of the project, research staff collected all of the standardized, progress

monitoring, fidelity, and classroom assessments and created classroom and parent reports to

share with teachers and parents.Therefore, the assessment process was not a major responsibility

or barrier for schools.However, if schools were going to continue to use screening and progress


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

20

monitoring assessments to obtain baseline data and to monitor academic progress, teachers

needed to begin to conduct assessments. To address this barrier, research staff had to work to

complete a teacher/classroom sustainability checklist that evaluated the classroom’s level of

independence toward sustainability. As teachers in classrooms demonstrated that they were

implementing Tier-1 instruction well and could effectively use data to make-decisions and

implement differentiated instruction and intervention, we began to have teachers collect progress

monitoring data. This school year, we have been able to monitor teacher’s continued data

collection and use of data. We found that school staff have become comfortable with the process

and are hopeful that teachers will continue to use data-driven decision-making once our support

ends.

A related sustainability barrier is replacement of the coaching and training workshop

supports that had been provided by our two-tiered ERF project. With successive years of

training and coaching, teachers became more familiar with the curriculum and data-driven

decision-making. The result was that child outcomes continued to improve each year. Teachers

became much more adept at self-reflection. Although this process needed time and substantial

support from project staff in terms of training and coaching, it evoked a new way of thinkingthat

translated into changed instruction. Throughout the project we had strong administrative support

which helped the staff be more accepting of outside forces helping to implement change.

However, there is concernthat because the time spent wasprimarily between teachers and ERF

staff, interactions with administrators was not sufficientfor reforms to stay in place without

similar external funding. Future work on this and similar models must address these challenges

of high-quality literacy/language training and coaching by training school staff and

administrators to fulfill these roles. Future work must also make it possible to sustain the


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

21

collaboration between researchers and teachers or between teachers and research-lead teachers

within the school so that the most current findings and practices continue to be infused into the

preschool environment.

Our two-tiered ERF project is encouraged by our experiences with our school

partners.During this school year, the teachers at two of our schools adopted our model and are

implementing it well with less input from us. Certainly systematic change in schools is not easy

or fast. It is a long-term process that includes change at every level from administrators down to

children. From initial implementation through sustainability new roles and thinking processes,

procedures, and acceptance of change are required at all levels in order to ensure success. It is a

continuing process of effortful work. However, we believe that such great effort enriches all who

participate in the process, especially the children.

REFERENCES

Abbott, M., Herring, A., Carta, J., & Staker, M. (June, 2006). Can PD in Early Reading First

Classrooms Improve Preschoolers’ Outcomes on Literacy and Vocabulary Assessment? - A

Kansas Case-Study of ERF Classrooms, National Head Start Conference, Washington DC.

Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Buzhardt, J. & Tapia, Y. (2006).Using Technology-Based Teacher

Support Tools to Scale Up the ClassWide Peer Tutoring Program.Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 22,(1), 47-64.

Abbott, M., Wills, H. P., Kamps, D., Greenwood, C. R., Kaufman, J. &Filingim, D. (2008). The

process of implementing a reading and behavior three-tier model: A case study in a midwest

elementary school, in C. R. Greenwood, C. R, R. Horner, T. Kratochwill, & I. Oxaal (Eds.),


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

22

Elementary School-Wide Prevention Models: Real Models and Real Lessons Learned, pp.

215-265. Guilford Press: NY, NY.

Barnett, W. S., (2003) Low wages = low quality solving the real preschool teacher crisis NIEER

Policy Brief Issue 3.

Boudah, D. J., Logan, K. R., & Greenwood, C. R. (2001). The research to practice projects:

Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 24(4), 290-303.

Buysse, V., Winton, P.J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition of professional

development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

28(4), 235-243.

Darling-Hammond L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy

evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1), 1-44.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995).Policies that support professional

development in an era of reform.Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.

Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention &

Intervention in the Community, 17, 5-18.

Early, D., M. Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., Cai, K.,

Clifford, R. M., Ebanks, C., Griffin, J. A., Henry, G. T., Howes, C., Iriondo-Perez, J., Jeon,

H.-J., Mashburn, A. J., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R. C., Vandergrift, N. &Zill, N. (2007).

Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from

seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558–580.

Farran, D. C., Aydogan, C., Kang, S. J., Lipsey, M. W. (2006). Preschool classroom

environments and the quantity and quality of children’s literacy and language


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

23

behaviors.In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds), Handbook of Early Literacy

Research Vol. 2, (pp. 257-269). NY, NY: The Guilford Press.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005).

Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South

Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation

Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

Greenwood, C. R. & Abbott, M. (2001).The research to practice gap in special

education.Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 276-289.

Hart, B. &Risley, T. R. (1995).Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young

American children.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hayes, K., Maddahian, E., &Fernandez, A. (2002). An Evaluation of Pre-K Reading Programs

(Planning, Assessment, and Research Division Publication No. 137). Los Angeles, CA:

Los Angeles United School District.

Hindman, A. H., &Wasik, B. A. (2008). Head Start teachers beliefs about language and literacy

instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 479-492.

Invernizzi, M., Meier, J., Juel, C.,&Swank, L. (2004).Pre-K Phonological awareness and

literacy screening. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., &Pianta, R. C. (2008).Quality of language and

literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils.Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 23, 51- 68.

Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C. R., Wills, H. P. & Veerkamp, M. (2008). Effects of small

group reading instruction for students who are most at risk in kindergarten: Two year results


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

24

for secondary and tertiary level intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 101-

114.

Kaminski, R. A. (2006). Word Part Preschool measures.

Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. (2007). Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX.:

Pro-Ed.

Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, (2010).The head STarT Child

developmenT and early learning Framework: Promoting positive outcomes in early

childhood programs serving children 3–5 years old. Washington, D C; U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services

McConnell, S. R., Priest, J. S., Davis, S. D., &McEvoy, M. A. (2001). Best practices in

measuring growth and development for preschool children. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 2, pp. 1231-1246). Washington, DC:

National Association of School Psychologists.

McGee, L. M., &Richgels, D. J. (2003).Designing Early Literacy Programs: Strategies for At-

Risk Preschool and Kindergarten Children.New York: Guilford Press.

Moats, L. (2009).Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling.Reading and Writing

Online, 22(1), 379-399.

Mowbray, C., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., &Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development,

measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315–340.

Morrison, F. J. & Connor, C.M. (2002). Understanding schooling effects on early literacy: A

working research strategy. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1),493–500.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early

Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

25

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network

& Duncan, (2003).Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool

cognitive development.Child Development, 71(1),1454-75.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Neuman, S. & Cunningham L (2009). The Impact of Professional Development and Coaching on

Early Language and Literacy Instructional practices. American Educational Research

Journal 46(2)532-566.

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., &Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write:

Developmentally appropriate practices for young children, Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing and measuring fidelity of implementation

and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of

Educational Research, 78(1), 33-84.

Pianta, R. C. (2005). Standardized observation and professional development: A focus on

individualized implementation and practices. In M. Zaslow& I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.),

Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 231–254). Baltimore:

Brookes.

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S. &Burchinal, M.R. (1997). Relations between preschool children’s child

care experiences and concurrent development: The cost, quality, and outcomes study.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43(3), 451-477.


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

26

Putnam, R.T. &Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say

about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Rennick, L. W. (2002). The relationship between staff development in balanced instruction for

kindergarten teachers and student literacy achievement.Dissertation Abstracts

International, 63(5), 1769. (University Microfilms No. 3051831).

Snyder, S. (2003). An Evaluation of Scholastic’s Building Language for Literacy in HeadStart

and Church-Based PreK Classrooms in Bessemer County, Alabama.

Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986).Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes

in mathematics and reading.Child Development, 57(1), 646-659.

Zvoch, K., Letourneau, L. E., & Parker, R. P. (2007).A multilevel multisite outcomes-by-

implementation evaluation of an early childhood literacy model.American Journal of

Evaluation, 28, 132-150.


For Peer Review

Table 1: ERF Training Workshops

Format Example of Yearly Training

Workshop Topics

Time Across School Year

Summer Whole-group

Teacher Training Workshops

Scholastic curriculum

Phonological awareness

Print knowledge

Oral Language Development

Storybook reading

Literacy and play

Room arrangement

Transitions

Family involvement

20 hours

Monthly Whole-group

Teacher Training Workshops

Explicit instruction strategies

Tiered implementation

Small group instruction

Differentiated instruction

Dialogic Reading

Data sharing

Data-based instructional decisions

Infusing writing throughout the day

Conversation during centers

Praise/reprimand ratio

Extending vocabulary

Literacy and song

32 hours

Mini-Classroom Workshops

across 9 classrooms

Meeting children’s individual needs

Teacher roles

29 hours per year

Total PD whole-group hours (over 3-year project) across all classrooms per school year = 52

Average hours per school year of mini-by-classroom PD per classroom = 3

Coaching

Totals across 9 classrooms Tier-1 coach

Planning

Daily routines

Literacy instruction

Data-based instr. decisions

Tier-2 coach

Intervention strategies

4 hours per week per

classroom;

1188 hours per year

across 3 coaches

4 hours per week in

classrooms as needed

132 hours per year

across 2 coaches

Total average (over 3-year project) coaching hours across all classrooms per school year = 1338

Average yearly coaching per classroom (T1*, 132 + T2**, 15) = 147

Average yearly coaching hours per teacher (T1, 44 + T2, 5) = 49 hours

Average yearly PD and coaching hours per teacher (52+3+49) = 104 hours

*T1=Tier-1; **T2=Tier-2


For Peer Review


For Peer Review

Table 2: Measurement of Classroom, Teacher, and Child

Construct Instrument Timing

Classroom Environmental Assessment – All Classrooms

Classroom Literacy

Environment

Early Language and Literacy Classroom

Observation-ELLCO

Twice yearly – fall

and spring

Instructional Support/Assessments – All Participating Teachers

Fidelity of

implementation

Circle, Center, Story

time, Small group

ERF Fidelity Checklists Twice yearly or more

to meet criteria

Quality and progress in

implementation

Mentor field notes Weekly

Self-assessment,

planning to accomplish

goals, and goal

completion

ERF teacher self-assessment survey and

action plan

At each PD

Teacher satisfaction

with instructional

strategies and PD

activities

Satisfaction surveys After each PD event

Summative Screening and Outcome Assessments – All Children

Receptive Vocabulary

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)


and spring

Alphabet knowledge

Print knowledge

Expressive vocabulary

Definitional vocabulary

Phonological awareness

Letter knowledge

Test of Preschool Early Literacy

(TOPEL)

Progress-monitoring assessments

(described below)


and spring

Formative Progress Monitoring Assessments – Children in Tier 2

Letter knowledge

fluency

DIBELS – Letter Naming Fluency

Monthly

Phonemic awareness DIBELS – First Sound Fluency DIBELS –

Word Part Fluency

Monthly

Alphabet knowledge Pre-K PALS – Alphabet Knowledge Monthly

Print Knowledge PreK PALS–Print and Word Awareness Monthly

Vocabulary G3 – Picture Naming Fluency Monthly


For Peer Review

Figure 1. Two-Tier ERF PD Model


For Peer Review

Figure 2. Total Teacher Fidelity by Classroom


For Peer Review

Figure 3: TOPEL Year 3 Pre/Post


For Peer Review

Figure 4: The change in the TOPEL standard score (SS) for a typical child who began below

average and had two years of ERF instruction.


For Peer Review

ERF PD Model

1

Appendix Early Reading First Fidelity of Implementation – Small Group

Classroom Teachers: ______________________________________________

Date: ________ School: ________________ Classroom: ___________ Observer: _________________

0 = Does not do, 1= Does on limited basis, 2 = Fully implements, NA = Not applicable

Required small group time: maximum of 15 minutes per session: Actual small group session time ____

Comments:

Teacher Behavior A B C D

1. It is apparent that the teachers have reviewed the lesson & have supplies

ready when lesson begins.

2. Lesson plans indicate that the teachers have small group activities planned

that include a phonological awareness/letter knowledge, math, and shared

reading activity (from the curriculum or teacher planned).

3. The teachers introduce the lessons stated on the lesson plan.

4. It is apparent that the teachers have differentiated instruction either by

having a variety of activities for variable grouping or different forms of the

same activity for ability grouping (e.g., use of the ESL bridge)

5. During the lesson, the teacher models as needed (I do it).

6. The teacher provides guided practice as needed (We do it).

7. The teacher provides opportunity for independent student practice (You do

it).

8. As students or teacher move between small group periods, there is an

orderly, short transition (2 minutes or less).

9. There is a methodology for keeping track of time during each small group.

10 Throughout the lesson, the small group teacher provides positive

reinforcement & appropriate behavior management techniques.

11 The transition to or from Small Group Time has a specific song, poem, etc.

that is quickly and smoothly executed in less than 2 minutes.

12 The teachers are able to verbalize the methodology for grouping.

Total

Student Behavior

1. Students listen to the presentation.

2. Students have the opportunity for individual practice.

3. Students are responsive to the teachers (e.g., quiet down when asked to).

Teacher Scores Total possible Total # received Fidelity percentage

A

B

C

Student Scores


Documents

A Data-Driven Preschool PD Model for Literacy and Oral Language Instruction