THE EFFECT OF TIER ONE LITERACY PRACTICES ON PRESCHOOLERS EMERGENT
LITERACY SKILLS
By
Tamela Jo Mannes

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of
Special Education - Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF TIER ONE LITERACY PRACTICES ON PRESCHOOLERS’ EMERGENT
LITERACY SKILLS
By
Tamela Jo Mannes
Preschool education has grown exponentially over the last 50 years, demonstrating longterm benefits (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, & Pennucci, 2004; Barnett, 2008, Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, &
Barnett, 2010; Gorey, 2001). Despite the long-term benefits, children are leaving preschool and
entering kindergarten with inadequate literacy skills (Carta, Greenwood, & Atwater, 2010). This
investigation sought to examine the effect of a class-wide literacy intervention and the
intervention’s impact on alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension, and concepts about print.
This study evaluated the impact of preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills after the
implementation of a hybridized version of two evidence-based curriculums, which have been
shown to improve preschool students’ alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness,
comprehension, vocabulary, and concepts about print. These interventions included the
Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy Strategies (Mathes, Clancy-Manchetti, & Torgeson, 2001)
and Developing Talkers: PreK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010). The hybridized
intervention was administered for 12-weeks in duration for a total of 48 sessions.
The first research question focused on the impact of the literacy intervention on specific
emergent literacy skills: preschool students’ alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness,
vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print. The second research
question examined the overall performance of the experimental group and control group on
broader measures of literacy, specifically cumulative scores on non-targeted literacy components

(i.e., sight words). The final three research questions compared the experimental and control
group scores concerning the proportion of students who met benchmark goals on assessments, as
well as the proportion of students who were deemed well below benchmark or below benchmark
based on cut scores.
The results of the experimental study revealed that participants in both conditions
developed emergent literacy skills over the duration of the study. However, the experimental
group outperformed the control condition in knowledge of letter sounds, phonological
awareness, and vocabulary measures. The results are outlined empirically, with implications for
teaching practice and assessment in preschool literacy programs.

Copyright by
TAMELA JO MANNES
2013

Dedicated to William for 15 years of steadfast love and support.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost thank you to Dr. Carol Sue Englert, my advisor and dissertation chair.
Her constant support and encouragement over the last three years is sincerely appreciated. Since
our paths crossed, Carol Sue has encouraged me and provided honest feedback throughout the
process. Thank you for the endless hours of support and helping mold me into a better
researcher, learner, teacher, and person.
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Troy Mariage, Dr.
Sara Bolt, and Dr. Josh Plavnick for their guidance on this project. Your questions, comments,
and critiques challenged me to become a more critical thinker, researcher, and scholar. For that I
am eternally grateful.
Thank you to all of my peers over the course of my studies. The conversations we have
had from differing perspectives have broadened my view of the world, thank you. Thank you to
all of the educators, parents, and students who have participated in this study. Without you this
would have never come to fruition. I am especially thankful to Kate Augustyn for her
collaboration over the years, and her vision to support and enhance the education for some of the
youngest learners. Additionally, thank you to my colleagues at work. Their support, flexibility
and shared vision are greatly appreciated as I have pursued my dreams!
I would not be here without the continual love and support from my family. I am forever
indebted to you for all of the opportunities I have been given because of sacrifices you have
made. Your dedication and support are the reason I am at this juncture.
Finally, words cannot express the amount of gratitude I have for William. You and
Olivia you are a blessing and remind me about the true purpose in life. Your tireless patience,

vi

support, trust, and love are the reason for the completion of this milestone. The weekends of
working on one project or another, the late nights, and the early mornings – thank you. You
have taught me to challenge the status quo, think deeper, and follow my dreams.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Study Purpose
Research Questions

1
1
1
4
5

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptual Frameworks
Holdaway’s theory of literacy development (1979).
Emergent literacy theory.
Social constructivism.
Preschool Education
Preschool curricula.
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
Benefits of an MTSS approach in preschool settings.
Challenges of an MTSS approach in preschools settings.
Research on preschool MTSS.
Emergent Literacy
Alphabetic principle.
Phonological awareness.
Vocabulary.
Comprehension.
Print awareness (Concepts about print).
Preschool Emergent Literacy Intervention
Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy Strategies research.
Developing Talkers: PreK research.
Intervention theoretical framework.
Study Context

7
7
7
7
9
11
14
17
18
20
21
22
25
26
28
30
31
33
34
35
36
38
40

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Participants
Preschool classrooms.
District demographics.
Participant demographics.
Design
Setting

43
43
43
43
45
46
47
48
viii

Data Sources
Assessment.
Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI).
Background on the PELI.
Administration information on the PELI.
Reliability and validity measures of the PELI.
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next
(2011; DIBELS)
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF).
First Sound Fluency (FSF).
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF).
Michigan literacy progress profile (MLPP).
Concepts about print.
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL).
Curriculum-based vocabulary measure.
Lower case letter names and sounds.
Sight words.
Intervention
Alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness instruction.
KPALS instruction.
KPALS modifications .
Vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print instruction.
Developing Talkers: PreK.
Concepts about print.
Time spent in intervention.
Procedural Fidelity
Control Group
Additional Common Instructional Themes/Components
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Data Analysis
Independent variable.
Dependent variables included in data analysis.
PELI.
DIBELS.
TROLL.
Additional variables.
Preliminary data analysis.
Fall analysis results.
Winter analysis results.
Research question one.
Alphabet knowledge.
Phonological awareness.
Vocabulary.
Comprehension.
ix

50
50
52
52
52
53
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
59
59
59
60
61
62
62
62
65
65
66
67
69
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
75
77
78
79
80
81

Concepts about print.
Research question two.
Total PELI score.
TROLL assessment.
Sight word assessment.
Research question three.
Research question four.
Research question five.

81
85
86
86
87
88
95
97

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Research Question One
Alphabet knowledge.
Phonological awareness.
Vocabulary.
Comprehension.
Concepts about print.
Research Question Two
PELI.
TROLL.
Sight words.
Research Question Three
Research Question Four
Research Question Five
Implications for Practice
Limitations of Research
Future Research
Conclusion

104
104
104
104
105
107
108
110
110
110
111
111
112
114
115
117
119
120
122

APPENDICES
Appendix A Curriculum-Based Vocabulary Assessment Measure
and Rubric
Appendix B Sight Word Assessment List
Appendix C Procedural Fidelity Measure
Appendix D Concepts about Print Cue Card

123
124

BIBLIOGRAPHY

144

x

137
139
142

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Literacy Skills. Intervention, and Assessment

41

Table 2 Group Assignment for Dissertation Sample

45

Table 3 Classroom Characteristics

45

Table 4 Classroom Characteristics and Participant Demographics

47

Table 5 Teacher Characteristics

50

Table 6 Assessments

52

Table 7 Correlations of PELI with Other Standardized Preschool Assessments

55

Table 8 Daily Intervention Components

66

Table 9 Classroom Schedules

71

Table 10 Fall Independent t-test Results

74

Table 11 Fall and Winter Group Means and Standard Deviations

75

Table 12 Winter Independent t-test Results

77

Table 13 Pearson Correlations for Spring Dependent Variables

82

Table 14 Spring ANCOVA Results

84

Table 15 Spring Group Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations

85

Table 16 Spring MANCOVA Results

88

Table 17 Preliminary PELI Benchmark Goals and Cut Points

90

Table 18 Winter and Spring Percentages of Students well below benchmark,
below benchmark, and at benchmark as measured on the PELI

94

Table 19 KPALS Instruction

139

Table 20 DTPK Instruction

140

Table 21 Zoo Phonics

140
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Zoo Phonics Sample Letter Sequence

70

Figure 2 Proportion of Well Below Benchmark Students Based on the PELI

93

Figure 3 Proportion of Students Reaching Benchmarks on the PELI

97

Figure 4 Proportion of students who were well below benchmark on the DIBELS

102

Figure 5 Percentage of students who were at benchmark on the DIBELS

103

xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Preschool education has changed dramatically over the past several decades (Barnett,
2008; Barnett & Frede, 2011; Bayat, Mindes, Covitt, 2010; Cabell, et al., 2010; Gorey, 2001;
Sylva, Cahr, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, 2011), with preschool enrollment
growing exponentially (Barnett, 2008). In 1960 only 10% of three to four-year-olds were
enrolled in preschool (Barnett, 2008). Currently, nearly three-quarters of four-year-olds and
almost half of three-year-olds are receiving preschool education (Barnett, 2008). To meet the
increasing enrollment demands, options for preschool programs have also expanded. Current
preschool options include: tuition-based preschool, preschool in child care settings, state-funded
preschool programs (i.e., Great Start Readiness Preschool in Michigan), federally-funded
programs (i.e., Head Start), and preschool special education.
For the past 50 years, research studies have been conducted to determine the effects of
preschool education (Aos, et al., 2004; Barnett, 2008; Camilli, et al., 2010; Gorey, 2001; McKey
et al., 1985; Nelson, Westhues, MacLeod, 2003). Research indicates that high-quality early
childhood programming has a long-term academic impact on young children into elementary
school (Aos et al., 2004; Barnett, 2008; Camilli et al., 2010; McKey et al., 1985; Winter &
Kelley, 2008). Preschool education is shown to produce moderate effect sizes positively
impacting children’s cognitive development (Camilli et al., 2010). The effect sizes were larger
when preschool education had a direct instruction component (Camilli et al., 2010).
Additionally, preschool education has proven to have a substantial impact on social-emotional
development, as measured by young children’s ability to handle daily life experiences (McKey et
al., 1985). Research indicates high-quality preschool education has positive effects on school
1

progress, specifically in the reduction of grade retention, reductions in special education referral
and placement, and an increase in high-school graduation rates (Aos et al., 2004; Barnett, 2008;
Camilli et al., 2010). More specifically, preschool attendance has been associated with a 12%
decrease in special education identification (Greenwood et al., 2011) as well as a 200% special
education cost savings (Bartik, 2012). High-quality preschool education also has a long-term
impact with preschool attendees earning 7% more by the age of 26 (Bartik, 2012).
Despite the research indicating the benefits of preschool education, many children
attending preschool do not receive research-based literacy instruction that is designed to impact
their skill proficiency at the start of Kindergarten (Carta, et al., 2010). Kindergarten literacy
skills are vital because they are associated with later reading achievement in both elementary
school (Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Diamond, Gerde, Powell, 2008) and high school
(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Diamond et al., 2008). Consequently, children who lack
literacy skills in kindergarten rarely catch up to their peers (Juel, 1988; Justice & Pullen, 2003).
Preschool environments have the potential to impact long-term literacy achievement
through the explicit provision of instruction in evidence-based literacy skills and through the
implementation of efficacious teaching practices (Aos et al., 2004; Barnett, 2008; Burger, 2010;
Camilli et al., 2010; Greenwood et al., 2011). National reports (National Institute of Literacy,
2008) further indicate that emergent literacy instruction should incorporate instruction in
phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print,
presented through a literacy rich classroom and explicit, intentional, and targeted literacy
instruction (Bailet, Pepper, Piasta, Murphy, 2009; Cabell, Justice, Konold, & McGinty, 2011;
Christie, 2008; Wang & Algonzinne, 2006). As Cunningham (2010) states, “The key to early
literacy development is a rich, well-organized environment that can support teachers’ goals for

2

children in other words, a high-quality literacy environment,” (p. 501). Research indicates
increasing preschoolers’ literacy and language skills promotes school readiness and long-term
academic success (Aos et al., 2004; Baker, Kupersmidt, Voeger-Lee, Arnold, & Willoughby,
2010; Barnett, 2008; Camilli et al., 2010; McKey et al., 1985; Winter & Kelly, 2008).
The research findings have been bolstered by two federal policies. First, Good Start,
Grow Smart (2002) was a federal initiative that focused on early learning in hopes of preparing
children who are developmentally and academically ready for kindergarten. Good Start, Grow
Smart (2002) also encouraged federal-state partnerships to develop high-quality preschools with
an emphasis on literacy and language development, aligning with the kindergarten through
twelfth grade state standards. Second, the importance of language and literacy was strengthened
by the early childhood component of No Child Left Behind (2001), prompting states to develop
preschool literacy standards and expectations. Currently, there is an increased focus on early
childhood education through President Obama’s Race to the Top, Early Learning Challenge,
which has granted State’s millions of dollars dedicated to improving early childhood education.
Despite the research supporting preschool emergent literacy practice and the federal
platform acknowledging and mandating emergent literacy practices, many preschool programs
do not implement research-based emergent literacy practices (Barnett & Frede, 2011; Justice &
Pullen, 2003; Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010). This is partly due to the gap
between research and practice, that is, the difficulty of translating research into instructional
recommendations that practitioners can implement (Justice & Pullen, 2003). There are several
other reasons for the lack of implementation of research-based literacy practices in preschool
environments. First, many preschool teachers are insufficiently trained to implement researchbased literacy interventions and practices (Greenwood, et al., 2011). Preschool teachers’

3

preparatory training is often limited, with few preschool teachers securing a bachelors degree
(Greenwood, et al., 2011). Second, there is a high rate of turnover in preschool staff, due to the
low wages that preschool teachers tend to make (Greenwood, et al., 2011). Third, there is a lack
of quality, continuing professional development that is designed to increase the teachers’
knowledge of the best practices that should be implemented in the early childhood education
curriculum (Hawken, Johnston, McDonnell, 2005). Finally, there remains minimal, conclusive
research about using research-based literacy intervention programs in preschool settings
(Lonigan & Cunningham, 2013; Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008;
PCER-C). When there is a lack of research surrounding efficacious preschool literacy
interventions (Lonigan & Cunningham, 2013; PCER-C, 2008), school districts and personnel do
not have instructional frameworks or guidelines that can inform the instructional practices of
preschool teachers as they strive to improve literacy outcomes.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate and intervene to improve preschoolers’
emergent literacy skill development in (1) alphabet knowledge (2) phonological awareness (3)
comprehension (4) vocabulary and (5) concepts about print, using a class-wide, research-based
literacy intervention. The literacy intervention incorporated researched-based practices that were
essential to the development of emergent literacy skills, including explicit emphases on the
instruction of: alphabetic knowledge (i.e., letter names and letter sounds), phonological
awareness (i.e., sound segmentation, initial sound phonemes, and rhyming), and through shared
book reading activities, which promoted of comprehension, vocabulary, and concepts about print
skills.

4

The intervention was based on the Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies
program (KPALS; Mathes, et al., 2001), which targets alphabetic knowledge and phonological
awareness. In addition, the vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print components of
the intervention were based on Developing Talkers: PreK (DTPK; The Children’s Learning
Institute, 2010) intervention strategies. The hybridized intervention that was based on the
integration of these two literacy programs took approximately 20-25 minutes per day. The
intervention was delivered over the course of 12-weeks in daily sessions that were implemented
by preschool teachers (i.e., typically four days per week). In addition, since the intervention was
implemented in a preschool program located in a school district where a Multi-Tier System of
Support (MTSS) was being implemented by teachers across the grade levels, the intervention
was employed and evaluated for its efficacy as a tier 1 intervention
Research Questions
The specific research questions addressed in this study included:
(1) Does implementation of a research-based literacy intervention have an effect on
preschool students’ (4-5-year-olds) emergent literacy skills, including their:
(a) alphabetic knowledge
(b) phonological awareness
(c) vocabulary
(d) comprehension
(e) concepts about print?
(2) Does a research-based, class-wide (tier 1) intervention have a differential effect on the
overall literacy development of intervention students compared to same-age peers who received
a standard preschool literacy curriculum implemented by comparison preschool teachers?

5

(3) Does implementation of a tier 1 emergent literacy intervention reduce the percentage
of kids who are considered well below (tier 3) and below (tier 2) benchmark on the Preschool
Early Literacy Indicator (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) assessment?
(4) Does implementation of a tier one intervention increase the percentage of students
who are at benchmark on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicator (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo,
2010) assessment?
(5) What impact does the implementation of a tier 1 intervention have on students’
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) scores
and the potential to achieve Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2011 fall (beginning of the year) kindergarten benchmarks?

6

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptual Frameworks
During the preschool years, children are developing rapidly as they participate in various
literacy experiences, which facilitate the development of emergent literacy skills, ultimately
leading to conventional literacy skills (Missall, McConnell, & Cadigan, 2006). The development
of emergent literacy skills is a multifaceted process in which multiple theoretical frameworks are
needed to fully understand the complexity of literacy learning and development in preschool
literacy environments. The theoretical frameworks that frame this research include: Holdaway’s
theory of literacy development (1979), emergent literacy theory (Tracey & Morrow, 2006), and
social constructivism (Englert & Mariage, in press; Mallory & New, 1994; Tracey & Morrow,
2006).
Holdaway’s theory of literacy development (1979). Holdaway’s (1979) theory of
literacy development encompasses three assumptions: (1) acquisition of literacy skills follows a
natural development pattern; (2) there are four processes central to learning literacy; and (3) the
utilization of specific teaching methods will enhance literacy development.
First, Holdaway (1979) asserts that the development of emergent literacy reflects a
natural progression in literacy-rich environments, mimicking the development of oral language
(Tracey & Morrow, 2006). For example, oral language development begins by adults talking to
children, eventually children start babbling and imitating sounds, followed by imitating and
vocalizing words, and language development continues to become more complex as children
master the developmental oral language progression, ultimately understanding that utterances
carry meaning (Genishi & Dyson, 2009). The process of oral language development is socially
mediated and scaffold by adults (Justice & Ezell, 1999).
7

Similar to oral language development, emergent literacy also shows a developmental
progression based on children’s participation in interactive environments with an adult language
user (Tracy & Morrow, 2006). First, children observe adults engaging in literate behaviors, such
as reading and writing (Holdaway, 1979). The children begin to explore these literacy behaviors
by creating stories, memorizing and reciting storybooks, and scribbling to mimic writing (Justice
& Ezell, 1999). Finally, as children progress and internalize the emergent literacy skills they are
able to become independent literate individuals (Holdaway, 1979).
Second, according to Holdaway (1979) there are several processes that are the foundation
of literacy development, all of which are rooted in meaning based instruction (Holdaway, 1979).
The first process is the child observes literacy behaviors (i.e., being read to). For example, the
child observes specific linguistic and cognitive actions that are taken by adults (i.e., page turning,
tracking the lines of print, pointing to pictures), and these behaviors come to be assimilated into
the child’s own metalinguistic performance (Justice, Chow, Capellini, Flanigan, & Colton,
2003). The second process is the adult and child work together to jointly participate in book
reading through interactions that are rich with encouragement, motivation, and assistance. For
example, the adult may invite the child to participate in the book-reading routine, while the adult
steps back to transfer the control of specific aspects of the linguistic processes to the child, but
stepping in to scaffold and prompt performance when the child is not able to perform the
processes independently (Justice & Ezell, 1999). The third process is allowing ample opportunity
for additional practice of learned skills to become a fluent, literate individual. The adult, for
example, may provide frequent opportunities for the child to reread the book with the support of
adult or taped models (Justice, Kaderavek, Fan, Sofka, & Hunt, 2009). The final process is

8

having the child perform or share their knowledge with adults and peers without the guided or
scaffolded assistance that characterized earlier interactions.
Finally, the third dimension of Holdaway’s theory of literacy development (1979) is that
specific teaching methods enhance literacy development. Holdaway (1979) asserted certain
literacy practices facilitate literacy growth. The first aspect is developing a literacy rich
classroom. For example, providing access to a multitude of books, explicitly placing print
throughout the classroom (i.e., labeling objects), and systematically embedding print in every
aspect of the classroom (i.e., free play, centers, classroom routines) are instructional instances
that contribute to the creation of a literacy-rich classroom (Kantor, Miller, & Fernie, 1992). The
second literacy practice Holdaway (1979) espoused was engaging children in high-quality
literacy practices which were socially mediated through both peer interaction and adult-directed
scaffolds. Shared book reading would be an example of a socially mediated activity in which
peers and adults are actively engaged, while allowing for social interactions that support young
readers through prompts, gestures, and linguistic or cognitive models.
Emergent literacy theory. A second literature that contributes to the design and
development of early literacy programs is emergent literacy theory, which builds upon
Holdaway’s (1979) theory of literacy development (Tracey & Morrow, 2006). The tenets of
emergent literacy theory are (1) emergent literacy begins at birth and emergent literacy
development is continuous; (2) reading, writing, listening, and speaking development are all
interrelated; (3) emergent literacy theory emphasizes the role of the home environment in
literacy development (Tracey & Morrow, 2006).
Emergent literacy theorists believe literacy development begins at birth and is continuous
(Tracey & Morrow, 2006). Furthermore, “ . . . children’s development in the areas of listening,

9

speaking, reading, and writing are all interrelated . . .The interrelatedness of these skills suggests
that positive growth in one area of literacy development will have a beneficial effect on the other
areas of development” (Tracey & Morrow, 2006, p. 85). This interrelated development impacts
how researchers and educators conceptualize emergent literacy instruction. Emergent literacy
instruction needs to encompass multiple aspects of emergent literacy (i.e., alphabet knowledge,
phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print) and not just
select components. “Emergent literacy theory underscores the finding that although many
factors are important to children’s reading success, including parents’ education, occupation, and
socioeconomic level, the quality of the literacy environment correlates most closely with
children’s early literacy ability” (Tracey & Morrow, 2006, p. 86).
Emergent literacy skills, as explained by Tracey and Morrow (2006), are fostered through
rich-literacy language interactions that occur in home and at school (Tracey & Morrow, 2006).
For those children who are afforded rich-literacy experiences at home, they come to school with
an understanding of the basic structure of narrative stories as a result of their prior book-reading
interactions with their parents. Through their prior participation in discursive events centered on
answering and asking meaning-making questions, they know how to comprehend and converse
about narrative texts (Justice et al., 2003).
However, many young children who are at-risk for reading failure do not have richliteracy experiences at home (Justice et al., 2003). Such children often lack linguistic knowledge
about sounds and words in print, and they do not have highly developed vocabularies or a
fundamental understanding of how to comprehend or discuss story narratives (Cabell, Justice,
Zucker, Kilday, 2009; Koutsaftas, Harmon, & Shelley, 2009; Missall, McConnell, Cadigan,
2006). These early literacy discrepancies put the children at great risk for later reading failure

10

(Cabel, et al., 2009; Koutsaftas, et al., 2009; Missal et al., 2006). For these students, it is
essential that they receive literacy-rich experiences in preschool settings that are arranged to
produce the best literacy outcomes in elementary school and beyond.
Social constructivism. Emergent literacy can also be examined through a social
constructivist lens. Social constructivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge is created
through explicit, guided experiences and interactions (Tracey & Morrow, 2006). A premise of
social constructivism is the inextricable link between mental activity and the social context.
Vygotsky a pioneer of social constructivism formed his theory on the following: (1) learning
through social interactions (2) the use of signs through which children learn the process of
semiotic mediation (3) the zone of proximal development and scaffolding (4) the apprenticeship
in communities (Englert & Mariage, 2011; Tracey & Marrow, 2006).
First, social interactions develop higher-level skills, which ultimately foster prolific,
literate individuals (Englert & Mariage, in press; Tracey & Morrow, 2006). Social interactions
are an impetus to development. These interactions with adults, peers, parents, and teachers serve
as the catalyst for development, via an orchestrated and calibration of moves that progress in a
seamless fashion from child-directed experiences to adult-mediated experiences that are
supported and informed by the other, and vice-versa. Simultaneously, the social context that
promotes the acquisition of emergent literacy skills is one in which children are positioned to be
active members and participants in a literacy community, and where children are encouraged to
actively observe, appropriate, participate in, and transform literacy practices through the social
exchange and development of new knowledge (i.e., student-to-student, teacher-to-student, and
student-to-teacher).

11

Au as cited in Tracey & Morrow (2006) summarizes the impact of environment on
literacy development:
“School literacy is seen as a social process, affected not only by present but historical
circumstances. Learning to read cannot logically be separated from the particular milieu
in which it takes place. When children learn to read, or fail to learn to read, they do so in
a particular social, cultural, and historical environment. Their success or failure in
reading cannot be understood apart from that environment.” (p. 106).
The second tenet of social constructivism is semiotic mediation. Semiotic mediation is
the process of developing connections between cognitive functions, symbolic tools, and
discourse (Tracey & Marrow, 2006). The development of reading requires the development of a
secondary academic discourse and a level of metalinguistic knowledge about the symbol system
and the arrangement of words and ideas in texts that is not always part of a natural literacylearning environment that features intuitive learning (Englert & Mariage, in press; Gee, 1990).
For example, students must develop an understanding of how to analyze oral and printed words
using their knowledge of the phonemic and graphemic properties of words (Cabell et al., 2009;
Koutsaftas et al., 2009; Missall et al., 2006), as well as how to identify the meaning relations in a
story based on their understanding of story structure and narrative elements (Justice et al., 2003).
In addition, students must have access to the self-regulating talk that might be first employed by
parents and teachers on the social or inter-psychological plane, but that students then acquire and
turn inward to direct their own literacy performance on the intra-psychological or independent
plane (Justice et al., 2003; Justice & Ezell, 1999). Through participation in conversations about
words in books and book meanings, students come to understand the nature of the talk, language,
structures, and the symbol system that characterizes social interactions about and with print, and

12

use that knowledge to mediate their subsequent interactions with language (oral and written),
other language users, and printed symbols in words, books and stories (Mallory & New, 1994).
The third tenet of Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism is the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) (Englert & Mariage, in press; Mallory & New, 1994; Tracey & Marrow,
2006). “ZPD is defined as the distance between the child’s actual developmental level as
determined by independent problem solving,” (Englert & Mariage, in press). Essentially, the
problems presented within environmental contexts are challenging enough to foster interest
among learners, but so complex that the children are unable to complete the task independently,
requiring the adult to provide temporary scaffolds which support the student’s learning and
acquisition of knowledge so that they can participate at a more advanced level (Englert &
Mariage, in press; Mallory & New, 1994).
Theorists have proposed that the zone of proximal development is bridged when the child
participates in mediating environments where there is an active collaboration and coparticipation by the child and adult in the entirety of the literacy activity. In their moment-tomoment interactions, the adult or teacher appraises the child’s current and evolving state of
knowledge or cognitive functioning, and uses that knowledge to provide the necessary language
or cognitive supports through just-in-time adjustments to help the child achieve what lies just
beyond his/her current level of independent attainment (Englert & Mariage, in press). For
example, if the goal is reading and discussing the story, the teacher might read the portions of the
text that lie beyond the child’s current level of performance, but ask the child to supply the
linguistic or cognitive actions related to book reading that lie just beyond the child’s
development performance. As opposed to modifying or diluting the goal of book reading,
therefore, the adult and child co-participate and share the entirety of the linguistic and cognitive

13

functions associated with book reading and thinking. Then through a gradual release of
responsibility, responsibility for performing the linguistic and cognitive operations is transferred
from the adult to the child to ensure greater literacy success and independence over time (Englert
& Mariage, in press; Tracey & Morrow, 2006). In this way, the apprenticeship model thrives in
the creation of zones of proximal development where the child participates in a complex
cognitive process with the guided and graduated assistance of adults who mediate literacy
performance through the moment-to-moment provision and removal of cues, prompts, models
and supports that are elegantly attuned to the child’s developmental levels (Englert & Mariage,
in press; Mallory & New, 1994; Tracey & Morrow, 2006).
The subsequent section will delve into multiple areas of research, highlighting the key
findings as well how the research-based practices are informed by the theories listed above.
First, preschool education and the impact of preschool curricula will be examined. Second, I
consider how preschool education is being influenced by a reform-oriented movement that
features early literacy intervention and frequent progress monitoring in a multi-tiered systems of
support framework (MTSS). MTSS is shaping when and how school districts monitor students’
literacy progress, with implications for the delivery and evaluation of preschool literacy
programs. Third, I examine and review the variables that are most closely aligned with effective
literacy interventions and assessments implemented in early literacy programs, including:
alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, and concepts of print.
The final section of the literature review will examine how all of the previous literature and
theory informs the proposed development, implementation, and evaluation of preschool
emergent literacy interventions.
Preschool Education

14

Despite the known benefits of early education, preschool education is not universally
available (Greenwood, 2009; Greenwood, et al., 2011). The lack of universal preschool
programs forces educational and governmental agencies to address the gap by offering preschool
programs which target underserved and at-risk populations. These preschool programs include:
federally funded programs (i.e., Head Start), state funded programs (i.e., Great Start Readiness
Preschool), tuition-based programs, preschool special education, and preschool offered through
child care facilities (Greenwood et al., 2011). Each of these programs brings with it unique
guidelines, entry criteria, goals for education, and teacher accreditation standards (Greenwood et
al., 2011; Mashburn, 2008). Furthermore, there is little consensus among the programs’
developers about how and what to teach in preschool (Greenwood et al., 2011, Mashburn, 2008).
Traditionally, the primary goal of preschool education was to provide children with
social-emotional opportunities in which they were exposed to math, science, social studies, arts,
and literature through play-based instruction, allowing children to explore freely (PrettiFrontzcak, 2011). As the importance of preschool education has been highlighted by empirical
research and translated into federal policies, traditional preschool practices have been
questioned, bringing an increased focus on the content of instruction and the manner in which
content is taught in preschool environments (Pretti-Frontzcak, 2011).
As the landscape surrounding preschool education has changed, the debate about
developmentally appropriate practices in preschool settings continues to create a division
between theoretical and practical implementation decisions (Greenwood et al., 2011; PrettiFrontzcak, 2011). Some practitioners believe instruction should be play-based while other
practitioners believe in the provision of explicit instruction that is developmentally appropriate
(Greenwood et al., 2011; Lonigan & Cunningham, 2013). Despite the qualitative differences in

15

explicit and play-based approaches to preschool education, the National Association of
Education for Young Children (NAEYC) put forth recommendations for developmentallyappropriate instruction which supports the intentional teaching of skills to young children
(NAEYC, 2009). According to the NAEYC (2009), “Developmentally appropriate teaching
practices provide an optimal balance of adult-guided and child-guided experiences,” (p.17).
Epstein (2007) as cited in NAEYC (2009) further defines adult-guided and child-guided
experiences, “Adult-guided experience proceeds primarily along the lines of the teacher’s goals,
but is also shaped by the children’s active engagement; child-guided experience proceeds
primarily along the lines of children’s interests and actions, with strategic teacher support,” (p.
17). NAEYC’s position pushes teachers away from the traditional model of preschool
instruction that features discovery and play as the only developmentally appropriate manner of
instruction; and redirects teachers to models that emphasize the explicit teaching of specific
skills to preschool children while maintaining developmentally appropriate practices (Lonigan &
Cunningham, 2013; Pretti-Frontzcak, 2011).
Much of the debate stems from a narrow view of social constructivism as the theoretical
framework in which many preschools were developed (Snow, 2011). Original
conceptualizations of this model in preschool settings featured the constructivist component of
the framework where students were viewed as active agents who constructed knowledge through
their own learning and self-directed activities, directing both the course and content of what was
learned in preschool. Currently, the field is beginning to grapple with the view of social
constructivism in preschool settings as representing a blend of child-initiated activities that are
informed and mediated by adult in appropriate zones of proximal development (Lonigan &
Cunningham, 2013; Snow, 2011). This broadening view of social constructivism has researchers

16

evaluating evidenced-based practices in preschool, specifically curricula (Lonigan &
Cunningham, 2013).
Preschool curricula. There is a lack of research on effective class-wide preschool
literacy curriculums (PCER-C, 2008). This is startling given the fact that “In 2005, nearly half
(47%) of all three to five-year-old children from low-income families were enrolled in part-day
or full-day prekindergarten programs,” (PCER-C, 2008, p. 32). The Preschool Curriculum
Evaluation Research Consortium (PCER-C; 2008) conducted a large-scale, nation-wide study to
evaluate the effectiveness of currently available and widely used preschool curricula.
The PCER-C project (2008) investigated the impact of 14 different preschool curricula on
both student and classroom-quality outcomes. . There were 2,911 children and 315 preschool
classrooms from low-income families, which included random assignment at the classroom
level. The mean age of children was 4.6 at baseline and 6.1 at follow-up data collection. The
performance of the preschool students at these sites were evaluated on several key dimensions:
(1) classroom-quality outcomes which measured skills such as teacher-child interaction and
instructional practices; (2) student-level literacy outcomes (i.e., including early reading skills,
phonemic awareness, language development, early mathematical knowledge, and behavior); (3)
follow-up data on kindergarten assessments.
PCER-C project (2008) concluded that eight preschool curricula had some impact on
classroom-quality outcomes, which measured teach-child interactions, quality of the
environment, and instructional practices. Classroom quality was measured through scales
designed to measure classroom quality through multiple observations, teacher interview, and
parent interview. The curricula which impacted classroom quality included: Bright Beginnings
(Pellin & Edmonds, 2001), Creative Curriculum (Dodge, Colker, & Heroam, 2002), Creative

17

Curriculum with Ladders to Literacy (Notari-Syverson, O’Connor, & Vadasy, 1998), Curiosity
Corner (Success for All Foundation, 2003), DLM Early Childhood Express (SRA/McGraw-Hill,
2003a) supplemented with Open Court Reading Pre-K (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2003b), Doors to
Discovery (Wright Group, McGraw-Hill, 2001), Let’s Begin with the Letter People, (Abrams &
Company, 2000) and Literacy Express (Lonigan & Farver, 2002).
Additionally, the PCER-C project (2008) evaluated student level outcomes, which
included: language, reading, phonological awareness, mathematics, and behavior. When
evaluated against these variables 12 of the curricula had no impact on student-level outcomes,
whereas two curricula had some impact on student-level outcomes in preschool. The two
curricula were DLM Early Childhood Express (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2003a) with Open Court
Reading Pre-K (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2003b); and Pre-K Mathematics (Klein, Starkey, &
Ramirez, 2002) supplemented with DLM Early Childhood Express Math software (Clements &
Sarama, 2003).
The aforementioned research indicates a need for additional curricula that impact both
classroom quality and student level academic outcomes. Determining preschool curricula that
facilitate student outcomes is vital because literacy skills at Kindergarten entry are predictive of
later literacy skills (Juel, 1998; Justice & Pullen, 2003; Spencer, Spencer, Goldstein, &
Schneider, 2013). Furthermore, the gap that exists between literacy skills at the end of
Kindergarten is likely to persist through school (Juel, 1998; Justice & Pullen, 2003; Spencer, et
al., 2013). If we can impact emergent literacy skills during preschool we will likely have an
impact on the students’ long-term literacy trajectory (Bayat et al., 2010; Greenwood, 2009;
Greenwood et al., 2011).
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

18

In addition to the federal initiative to improve preschool education, there is a second
initiative that prompts schools and educators to pay close attention to the instructional efficacy of
a literacy intervention based on student outcomes. Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is a
multi-tiered, problem-solving model, linking assessment to instruction to address the needs of all
learners (Bayat et al., 2010; Denton et al., 2010; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Gettinger &
Stoiber, 2007; Jackson, Pretti-Frontczak, Harjusola-Webb, Grisham-Brown, Romani, 2009;
VanderHeyden & Snyder, 2006; VanDerHeyden, Snyder, Broussard, & Ramdell, 2007; Walke,
Carta, Greenwood, & Buzhardt, 2008). Commonly the terms MTSS and response to intervention
(RtI) are used interchangeably (National Association of State Directors of Special Education,
2006). However, the concept of MTSS is broader than RtI because it encompasses all aspects
that impact systems change in addition to the features of RtI which are data-based decision
making, multiple intervention tiers, and a problem-solving approach (National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, 2006).
In an MTSS framework, there are multiple tiers or levels of interventions that are
recommended by proponents of MTSS in the literature (Bayat et al., 2010; McMaster, Kung,
Han, Cao, 2008). The primary goal of MTSS is prevention of reading problems by implementing
evidence-based and timely interventions in the regular classroom (Bayat et al., 2010; Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2010; Fuchs, 2003; McMaster et al., 2008; VanderHeyden & Snyder,
2006). At the first tier (tier 1) in the MTSS framework, all students receive research-based
instruction that is implemented by their general classroom teachers, while academic progress is
monitored using benchmark assessments (Bayat et al., 2010; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs et al.,
2010; Fuchs, 2003; McMaster et al., 2008; VanderHeyden & Snyder, 2006).

19

If, however, students fail to reach expected benchmarks, then they receive additional and
more concentrated interventions (tier 2) that are delivered in small group or individualized
instructional settings (Bayat et al., 2010; McMaster et al., 2008; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rachotte,
1997; VanderHeyden & Snyder, 2006). Tier 2 interventions are research-based, and supplement
rather than replace the tier 1 intervention. Students within tier 2 placements receive additional
instruction and progress monitoring in deficit areas, without referral to special education (Bayat
et al., 2010; Xu & Drame, 2008).
Finally, the students who make insufficient progress in tier 1 and tier 2 receive intensive
individualized literacy instruction (tier 3) (Bayat et al., 2010; McMaster et al., 2008; Xu &
Drame, 2008). Students who receive more intensive services in tier 3 programs obtain all tier 1,
tier 2, and tier 3 supports with more concentrated instruction and frequent progress monitoring.
Students in tier 3 can be considered for a special education referral based on the data from
benchmark and progress monitoring assessments (Bayat et al., 2010; Xu & Drame, 2008).
MTSS holds promise for remediation of learning challenges (Jackson et al., 2009). The field of
early childhood education is attempting to, “Conceptualize and interpret RtI within the context of
the preschool program” (Jackson et al., 2009, p. 425). The application of a MTSS framework in
preschool shows promise. However, due to the structure within preschool environments there
are inherent benefits and challenges.
Benefits of an MTSS approach in preschool settings. The implementation of a MTSS
approach in preschool settings has many benefits. The primary goal of MTSS within a preschool
context is to intervene at earlier ages in hopes of mitigating a potential reading or learning
disability (Bayat et al., 2010; Coleman, Roth, & West, 2009; Greenwood, 2009; Greenwood et
al., 2011; VanderHeyden, Snyder, Broussard, Ramsell, 2007). Furthermore, research indicates

20

time and time again, learning begins at birth and the preschool years offer great opportunity to
provide quality early learning experiences (Greenwood, 2009; Greenwood et al., 2011;
Heckman, 2000). These targeted early learning experiences serve as a potential avenue to close
the achievement gap, preparing the youngest learners to be ready for kindergarten. Heckman
(2000) as cited in Greenwood et al. (2011) summarizes the potential impact of quality early
learning experiences, “ Recent research in psychology and cognition demonstrates how vitally
important the early preschool years are for skills formation . . . Early learning begets later
learning and early success begets later success” (p. 5). A MTSS framework has the potential to
greatly enhance the quality of early instruction, hence facilitating more positive social and
academic outcomes for students.
Additionally, an MTSS framework provides preschool students with social-emotional
experiences, especially students who are at-risk for academic failure (Bayat et al., 2010;
Greenwood et al., 2011; VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). The use of a MTSS framework in
preschool settings allows teachers and staff to explicitly target students’ early literacy skills
(Bayat, 2010; Greenwood et al., 2011; VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). Finally, the use of a MTSS
model enhances the inclusion opportunities for children with disabilities, granting access to peer
models and explicit, targeted interventions (Greenwood et al., 2011).
Challenges of a MTSS approach in preschool settings. Despite the many potential
benefits there are also challenges inherent in the implementation of preschool MTSS. The
primary challenge is lack of a universal preschool system (Greenwood, 2009; Greenwood et al.,
2011). Specifically, preschool programs within the United States consist of a variety of
programs including: federally funded programs (i.e., Head Start), State funded programs (i.e.,
Michigan’s Great Start Readiness Preschool), tuition-based programs, and daycare-based

21

programs (Greenwood et al., 2011). Each of these programs operate under different policies,
have different funding sources, and operate programs for varying amounts of time and days
(days per week and time per day) (Greenwood et al., 2011). The myriad of stakeholders
involved in Head Start, state-funded preschool, and tuition-based preschool create systematic
challenges in the creation of more uniform policies, procedures, and selection criteria.
Another set of challenges arises when evaluating intervention practices implemented at
all levels (tier 1, tier 2, tier 3) of instruction. First, there is debate about the content taught in
preschool settings and which instructional practices are considered developmentally appropriate
(Greenwood et al., 2011). Not only how and what to teach is a challenge, but there is a lack of
consensus about which of the many commercially available curriculums have a strong evidence
base (Lonigan & Cunningham, 2013; Mashburn, 2008; PCER-C, 2008). The lack of evidencebased interventions for the design and implementation of tier 1 class-wide programs presents a
monumental challenge to the achievement of one of the founding principles of MTSS. At the
same time, there are minimal research-based tier 2 and tier 3 interventions (Buysse & PeisnerFeinberg, 2009; Greenwood, Carta, Goldstien, Kaminski, & McConnell, 2009; Greenwood et al.,
2011), further complicating the implementation of research-based tiered interventions. More tier
1 research is needed as it provides the foundation from which the most appropriate tier 2 and tier
3 strategies will be further developed.
Research on preschool MTSS. There is a lack of research focusing on preschool tier 1
instruction, specifically language and emergent literacy instruction. According to
VanDerHeyden, Synder, Broussard, Ramsdell (2007), “The ways in which RtI can be linked to
efforts to support preschool children with and without disabilities and children with known risk
factors has yet to be widely discussed or examined empirically,” (p. 233). Despite the paucity of

22

research, there are a few studies, which have examined preschool literacy instruction within a
MTSS framework. The few studies that do exist focus on a variety of topics: curriculum-based
measurement, professional development, and a descriptive study about tier 1 instruction (Buysee
& Peisner-Feinberg, 2009; Carta, et al., 2010; VanderHeyden et al., 2007). These efforts are
described in the section that follows.
First, VanDerHeyden et al., (2007) conducted a study examining the utility of
curriculum-based measurement in a preschool MTSS decision-making framework. The study
revealed that curriculum-based measurement can be done in preschool and can lead to
instructional data based decisions, which led to specific interventions. The study was conducted
with 4-year-old children enrolled in either an urban Head Start program or a rural public
preschool. There were two classrooms per setting, one of which was randomly selected as the
treatment group and the second classroom was assigned to the control group. Both settings
employed The Creative Curriculum, which is a preschool curriculum to guide instructional
content based on the children’s needs and interests (Dodge et al., 2002). Several child-level
measures were used to gather data targeting emergent literacy development, including letter
identification, alliteration, rhyming, letter sound knowledge, and initial sound fluency. The
researchers found that curriculum-based measurement enhanced the accurate of decision making
about children’s literacy skills, which helped teachers select, targeted literacy interventions, and
led to the treatment groups literacy performance surpassing that of the control group.
An additional study was conducted by Buysee & Peisner-Feinberg (2009) and outlined in
Greenwood et al. (2011). This study included 300 four-year-old children in 24 different
classrooms. The researchers examined the role of professional development in implementing a
MTSS framework, the utility of a universal screener, and the effectiveness of tier 2 interventions.

23

Unfortunately, the authors did not delineate the screener or the intervention used, and the results
from this study were not outlined in either article; instead Buysee & Peisner-Feinberg (2009)
presented the study as a theoretical framework for preschool MTSS implementation. Greenwood
et al., (2011) referenced the study as a current investigation of preschool MTSS, but the ongoing
nature of the research precluded the reporting of the research findings. As a consequence, the
study failed to fully chronicle the impact or implementation of tier 1 instruction in a preschool
MTSS model.
Carta, Greenwood, and Atwater (2010) conducted a descriptive study of preschool
classrooms tier 1 literacy instruction. The study evaluated 68 classrooms with a total of 840
children. Preschool classrooms included state-funded preschool, Head Start, Title 1, and tuitionbased preschool. Student level data collection included standardized assessments, observation
data, and literacy screener measures. Classroom level data collection was also conducted via
observation through checklists. The Carta et al. (2010) study found higher proportions of
students who need tier 2 or 3 support in preschool classrooms than in Kindergarten through fifth
grade classrooms. Additionally, like other educational environments, children who had more
risk factors were more likely to need tier 2 and 3 supports. Finally, the data reflected the fact
that there was a higher incidence of tier 2 and tier 3 children in preschool because of their entrylevel characteristics on the literacy assessments (Carta et al., 2010).
At a classroom level, the Carta et al. (2010) study found the teacher support for literacy
and language varied considerably from classroom to classroom. Teachers who focused on
literacy skills saw sizable growth in student academic achievement. However, teacher behaviors
that provided explicit literacy and language instruction were infrequent, with only 16% of the

24

instructional time dedicated to a literacy focus, equating to less than 30 minutes in a three-hour
class.
The lack of research concerning the effectiveness of tier 1 instruction is evident and was
rd

identified as a need at the 3 Annual Preschool Response to Intervention Summit (Santa Ana
Pueblo, New Mexico, September 26-27, 2011). Additionally, much of the research surrounding
preschool MTSS surrounds measurement, tier 2 and 3 interventions (Preschool Response to
Intervention Summit, 2011). Prior to implementing tier 2 and 3 interventions, research needs to
be conducted to implement and to evaluate the impact of research-based tier 1 literacy
interventions. In the next section, I review the essential literacy components that must be
incorporated into tier 1 literacy interventions. The next section of this paper examines the tenets
of emergent literacy, which is the foundation of MTSS in preschool settings.
Emergent Literacy
The National Early Literacy Panel Report (2008) indicates there are several literacy skills
that are strong indicators of a child’s later reading success. These skills include: alphabet
knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid naming of letters and digits, writing/name writing,
and definitional vocabulary (oral language). The National Early Literacy Panel Report (2008)
further suggests that the relationships between the above variables and later reading success are
relatively stable and reliable. Other moderate indicators for later reading success include:
concepts about print, print knowledge, visual processing, and expressive and receptive
vocabulary (oral language) (National Institute of Literacy, 2008).
The statistics concerning early reading skill acquisition and the long-term impact on
school achievement are startling. A child who is not able to read by the end of second grade only
has a 25% chance of catching up by the end of elementary school (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007).
25

Conversely, students who are poor readers at the end of elementary school are likely to have
encountered literacy problems as early as preschool (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007). This suggests
that the improvement of children’s early literacy skills in the preschool years might influence
their reading achievement in later years. Such early literacy instruction might narrow the gap
between high readers and low readers, since more young readers will be able to meet the literacy
standards measured on literacy assessments administered in kindergarten and first grade
(Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007). In the next sections, the literacy skills that are considered
foundational in the design of PreK literacy interventions are reviewed, given their importance in
predicting future reading performance.
Alphabetic principle. A child’s alphabetic knowledge is vital to long-term reading
outcomes, and one of the single best predictors of later literacy success (Dion, Broduer, Gosselin,
Campeau, & Fuchs, 2010; Elliott & Olliff, 2008; Kim, Foorman, Petscher, & Zhou, 2010,
Phillips & Piasta, 2013; Piasta & Wagner, 2010). The National Early Literacy Panel Report
(2008) indicates alphabet knowledge has a strong correlation (.50) with conventional literacy
skills (reading, comprehension, and writing). Students who encounter difficulty with letter names
are more likely to encounter reading problems in later grades and to be diagnosed with learning
disabilities (Piasta & Wagner, 2010). When a child enters kindergarten with limited knowledge
of letter names and sounds, it correlates with weaker word recognition abilities at the end of first
grade (Dion et al., 2010). The NAEYC and International Reading Association put forth a joint
position statement recognizing the importance of the learning letter names and sounds during
preschool, allowing students to enter kindergarten as prepared as possible (NAEYC & IRA,
1998).

26

Share (2004) argues letter name knowledge emerges prior to letter sound knowledge and
letter name knowledge makes it easier for children to develop letter-sound knowledge. Share
(2004) investigated letter name and sound acquisition with Israeli children who were not familiar
with English letter names and sounds. Forty-six children were paired based on pre-test
assessments and randomly assigned to either treatment or control conditions. There were ten 10minute sessions with two to three sessions per week. The experimental group learned six letter
names and sounds, which were paired with a symbol instead of the actual letter. This choice was
made to ensure accurate measurement of learning because the Latin letters are common in Israeli
culture. The control group learned real-word names for the symbols. Based on statistical
analysis the results indicated students in the experimental group were at an advantage when
learning letter sounds, because of the explicit letter name instruction.
Another study conducted by Bunn, Burns, Hoffman, & Newman (2005) taught letter
identification using incremental rehearsal. This study targeted a preschooler who had difficulty
mastering letter name knowledge. The incremental rehearsal strategy was used to teach letter
names by incorporating new content into already mastered content. The Bunn et al., (2005)
study found incremental rehearsal to be an effective manner to teach letter names. The subject
learned 22 of the 26 letters in three weeks of instruction. This study was characterized by
multiple weaknesses (design, lack of specificity); however, it demonstrates that explicit letter
name instruction leads to increases in letter name knowledge.
Many studies in emergent literacy do not target alphabet knowledge in isolation; instead
alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness knowledge are targeted together (Schnieder,
Roth, Ennemoser, 2000). Combining literacy skills in interventions is based on Hatcher, Hulme,
& Ellis (1994), who proposed the “phonological linkage hypothesis”. This hypothesis was based

27

on the premise that instruction of skills in isolation is less effective than integrating emergent
literacy skills (Hatcher, Hume, & Ellis, 1994). Hatcher et al. (1994) tested the theory by
developing a reading only intervention group, a phonological only training group, a reading and
phonological training group, and a control group. They found the reading and phonological
training group surpassed all other groups in word identification, word reading, comprehension,
and spelling.
The following section outlines phonological awareness acquisition, research surrounding
phonological awareness in isolation, and the combination of alphabet knowledge and
phonological awareness instruction.
Phonological awareness. In addition to the alphabetic principle, a child’s phonological
awareness skills are critical for long-term literacy outcomes (Kim et al., 2010), demonstrating a
moderate relationship (.40) with conventional reading skills (National Institute of Literacy,
2008). Phonological awareness refers to the sublexical structure of oral language (Justice &
Pullen, 2003). This involves the ability of students to segment spoken words into phonemes or
sounds, and to rearrange, rhyme, or substitute sounds to construct other words. Phonological
awareness includes alliteration, blending, phoneme identification, rhyming awareness,
segmenting, and word awareness (Justice & Pullen, 2003). The development of phonemic
awareness skills is typically viewed on a continuum, developing from the relatively simpler task
of segmenting and blending larger segments of words (e.g. compounds words and syllables), and
progressing to the more difficult tasks involving the manipulation, isolation, and construction of
smaller segments of words, such as individual sounds in words (National Institute of Literacy,
2008).

28

Bradley and Bryant (1985) were the pioneers in conducting research on effective
phonological awareness instruction (Bailet et al., 2009, Schnieder et al., 2000). Bradley and
Bryant (1985) investigated sound categorization instruction (e.g., “What word doesn’t belong,
“hat, teeth, hop”) with five to seven-year-olds who were struggling. Results showed that
learning to categorize sounds in words in combination with manipulating the corresponding
plastic letter tiles produced better results in reading and writing than practicing sound
categorization in isolation.
It is widely accepted that best practice in emergent literacy combines both phonological
awareness skills and alphabetic principle skills (Bailet et al., 2009). Developing phonological
awareness skills foster the development of letter name and sound knowledge, and vice versa
(Lonigan, 2006). In order to facilitate maximum development of emergent literacy skills
teaching phonological awareness and letter naming simultaneously is preferential.
One example is research conducted by Justice, Chow, Capellini, Flanigan, & Colton
(2003). This study examined the effect of a six-week literacy intervention, administered twice
weekly for 30 minutes each session. The experimental group received explicit literacy
instruction focused on name writing, reciting the alphabet, and phonological awareness, which
focused on rhyming, syllable segmentation, and initial sound fluency. Additionally, the
comparison intervention focused on shared storybook reading. The experimental group, which
received the targeted literacy instruction, had superior literacy skills in alphabet knowledge and
phonological awareness than that of the control group.
Furthermore, Bailet, Pepper, Piasta, & Murphy (2009) conducted an emergent literacy
intervention study. The intervention was nine weeks with two 30-minute lessons per week. The
intervention targeted letter names and sounds, syllable counting and segmentation, rhyming,

29

alliteration, and onset rime. The intervention was administered to two groups of participants in a
delayed-onset design. Children who received the intervention made significant gains in
emergent literacy skills, specifically rhyming and alliteration.
This proposed study aims to encompass multiple components of an effective literacy
intervention which include not only alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness but also
vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print. When targeting emergent literacy skills, it
is paramount to include multiple emergent literacy domains to maximize student growth in all
areas (National Institute of Literacy, 2008). The subsequent sections evaluate vocabulary,
comprehension, and concepts about print instruction and research.
Vocabulary. Vocabulary encompasses semantic, syntactic, and conceptual knowledge,
and is linked to later reading proficiency (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). The ability to
contextualize unknown vocabulary is key in the comprehension of text, and vocabulary is built
upon a child’s oral language abilities (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Vocabulary development
begins years before preschool, and is impacted by environmental factors (Hart & Risley, 1995).
Hart & Risley’s (1995) seminal study examined vocabulary development and found children
from upper-class homes, working-class homes, and welfare homes were exposed to 11.2 million,
6.5 million, and 3.2 million words respectively. These differences are vast and show the need to
focus on vocabulary learning in preschool classrooms, especially for at-risk populations.
Vocabulary instruction in preschool has not been extensively researched (Justice, Bowles,
Pence Turnbull, Skibbe, 2009; Tuckwiller et al., 2010). The emerging research has shown
vocabulary instruction can yield powerful effects (Neumann, 2011). However, vocabulary
instruction in preschool classrooms is often inadequate, with no targeted, rich vocabulary
instructional opportunities for young learners (Neumann, 2011). Additionally, “. . . normal

30

preschool read alouds contain an average of 0.94 vocabulary explanations” (Zucker, Solari,
Landry, Swank, in press). Despite the troubling statistics, research has shown remediation of
language deficits by age three or four reduces the likelihood for later reading difficulties (Justice
et al., 2009).
Tuckwiller, Pullen, & Coyne (2010) conducted a vocabulary intervention study to
address the paucity of vocabulary intervention studies at the kindergarten level. The study
consisted of 92 kindergarteners from six classrooms. The students were selected for the study
based on a predetermined cut off score. The intervention consisted of a class wide shared
storybook reading session, with two follow-up sessions to reinforce the vocabulary concepts in
the story. The Tucker et al. (2010) study focused on one story read twice with two follow-up
sessions. This study found small effects for the treatment group in vocabulary acquisition.
Silverman & Crandell (2010) completed a correlational study examining the relationship
between teachers’ vocabulary practices and children’s vocabulary development. There were 244
participants, from16 Kindergarten teachers’ classrooms. The results indicated that certain
teaching and learning practices led to better vocabulary outcomes, specifically acting out or
illustrating words, analyzing words, defining words in rich contexts, using the word in multiple
contexts, and word study.
Comprehension. In addition to vocabulary, successful readers not only decode the
letters on the page to read words, but they must also comprehend the words being read to make
meaning of the text (Zucker et al., in press). Preschool children who present weak oral language
and vocabulary skills are at a greater likelihood to have reading comprehension difficulties in
later grades (Cabell et al., 2011; Zucker et al., in press). In order to comprehend text a reader

31

must inference, activate prior knowledge, and make meaning (Cabell et al., 2011; Zucker et al.,
in press).
Comprehension and vocabulary instruction for preschoolers can be achieved through an
apprenticeship model of shared book reading (Hindman, Connor, Jewkes, & Morrison, 2008;
Zucker et al., 2011). Shared book reading is a dialogic activity in which the adult and child
interact with the pictures, concepts, and words in the book. Through these interactions, the adult
brings attention to the print, words, vocabulary, letters, structure, and the visual and phonological
qualities of the print, demonstrating book handling skills, and building comprehension.
Furthermore, in shared book reading, three specific literacy skills that develop in young readers
(e.g., building alphabet knowledge, print awareness, and phonological awareness) produce
moderate effects sizes in predicting reading comprehension (0.48, 0.48, and 0.44) (National
Institute of Literacy, 2008).
Hargrave and Senechal (2000) conducted a study of the impact of shared book reading
with 36 preschoolers who had poor expressive language abilities. Teachers with a supplemental
parent component administered the intervention. The intervention consisted of teachers and
parents asking targeted questions and responding to the child’s interest throughout the story. The
intervention consisted of ten books, read twice. The outcome measures included teacher level
behavior checklists, standardized vocabulary assessments, and a curriculum-based vocabulary
measure. The parent component was measured by parent report of having read or not read, there
was not examination of specific parent level shared reading behavior. The results indicated that
teacher behavior was significantly changed and the intervention had a small effect size on
children’s vocabulary development on the curriculum-based measure but no on the standardized
measure.

32

Print awareness (Concepts about print). Finally, print awareness involves a child’s
ability to understand the various components and features of print (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998). A student must understand the conventions of print in order to fully comprehend the text
when reading (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). The conventions of print refer to reading left to
right, reading front to back, the difference between the text and the pictures, the meaning of
punctuation, and spaces between words (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). A child’s ability to
understand various components of print may be able to predict later reading comprehension
abilities (0.48 effect size) (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
Justice & Ezell (2000, 2002) have been pioneers in researching the effectiveness of print
awareness interventions. The 2000 study evaluated the impact of a print awareness intervention
administered within the home environment. Results indicated parents in the treatment group
increased print and non-print references of the book based on parent behavior checklists
compared to the control group. Justice & Ezell conducted a classroom study in 2002, which
evaluated the impact of a print awareness intervention in 30 Head Start classrooms. The
treatment group received shared reading sessions that were print focused while the control group
received shared reading sessions that focused on the pictures within the text. The results showed
students in the treatment group outperformed students in the control group in knowledge about
words in print, print recognition, and alphabet knowledge. An additional classroom study by
Justice & Ezell was conducted with 59 teachers assigned to two conditions over a 30-week
period. The treatment group had 120 read aloud sessions with specific print targets, where the
control group read the same 120 books in a “business as usual” manner, with the teacher
determining what aspects to focus on. All studies found a statistically significant difference
between children who received the print awareness intervention and those children who did not.

33

McGinty, Briet-Smith, Fan, Justice, & Kaderavek (2011) measured the impact of dose
and dose frequency on print knowledge acquisition. The McGinty et al. (2011) study measured
the impact of dose, number of print strategies per session, and dose frequency, which was the
number of sessions per week. The study included 367 children who were randomly selected for
the 30-week intervention. The results indicated a statistical difference in children’s print
knowledge when either the dose (number of print strategies per session) or the dose frequency
(the number of sessions per week) were increased. However, when both the number of strategies
per sessions and the number of sessions per week were increased simultaneously the results were
not as positive. This finding indicates a need to provide explicit, targeted instruction of print
knowledge.
Preschool Emergent Literacy Intervention
As the literature has shown, preschool emergent literacy development encompasses a
multitude of skills, which include: alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension, and concepts about print and the aforementioned skills are essential to children’s
later reading proficiency (National Institute of Literacy, 2008). However, commercially
available preschool curricula typically do not contain specific emergent literacy instruction
lessons and strategies, instead they provide suggestions to incorporate emergent literacy
instruction into the child-directed activities (i.e. Creative Curriculum by Dodge et al., 2002;
Lonigan & Cunningham, 2013; PCER-C, 2008). A seminal study by Whitehurst et al. (1994)
indicates that “modest additions” (p. 552) to a curriculum can significantly increase
preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills. The NAEYC and IRA joint position statement (2009)
highlights the need for continued understanding of providing emergent literacy instruction in
preschool settings, “The early childhood profession now recognizes that gaining literacy

34

foundations is an important facet of children’s experience before kindergarten, although the early
literacy component still needs substantial improvement in many classrooms” (p. 7). The
remainder of the literature review will now look at the components of the intervention that will
be used for the purposes of this study.
Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy Strategies research. A published curriculum
with a strong evidence base is the Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (Fuchs et al.,
2001; Mathes et al., 2001; KPALS). KPALS was based on the work of researchers at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas (Fuchs et al., 2001; Mathes et al., 2001). KPALS is
designed to improve literacy instruction within kindergarten classrooms (Fuchs et al., 2001;
Mathes et al., 2001). The program is designed to be administered to the whole class in three, 20minutes sessions, weekly (Mathes et al., 2001). The students are paired, allowing the entire class
to be acitively engaged in building literacy skills. This program has been empirically validated as
a program that is effective for children at-risk of reading failure (Mathes et al., 2001).
The KPALS program involves three activities that target letter knowledge, phonological
and phonemic awareness, and phonics (Mathes et al., 2001). The letter knowledge portion
included students learning the names and letter sounds in tandem with each other (Mathes et al.,
2001). In the phonological and phonemic awareness component students learned rhyming, initial
sound fluency, phoneme blending, and phoneme segmentation skills (Mathes et al., 2001). The
phonics section of the KPALS program involved students sounding out words, making the lettersound correspondence, and reading words quickly after they have been sounded out (Mathes et
al., 2001).
Fuchs et al. (2001) conducted a large-scale study to determine the impact of the KPALS
program on kindergarten students’ phonological awareness and letter naming skills. The results

35

were significant in increasing the students’ phonological awareness skills, skills that were still
apparent five months after the intervention. McMaster, Kung, Han, & Cao (2008) investigated
the use of the KPALS curriculum with English Language Learners to remediate potential reading
challenges. The intervention was administered for 18 weeks, four times a week, measuring
student performance using a pre-test, post-test design. The results indicated that students who
received KPALS instruction outperformed those in the control group in phonemic awareness and
letter recognition with effect sizes ranging from .58 to .69 (McMaster et al., 2008). A recent
study conducted by Rafdal, McMaster, McConnell, Fuchs, & Fuchs (2011) confirmed the
previous research findings that students who received KPALS instruction had alphabet
knowledge and phonological awareness skills that surpassed their counterparts.
The KPALS curriculum focuses on specific instruction in the alphabetic principle and
phonological awareness, which are the cornerstones of emergent literacy development (Mathes et
al., 2001). Despite the effectiveness of KPALS, it does not demonstrate strong emphasis on
several key emergent literacy components, vocabulary development, comprehension, and
concepts about print. The proposed study targets emergent literacy instruction using KPALS to
target alphabetic principal and phonological awareness and supplementing the program with
specific instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print through DTPK.
Developing Talkers: PreK research. Zucker, Solari, Landry, Swank (in press) piloted a
curriculum, Developing Talkers: PreK (DTPK) (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010), which
targeted vocabulary and comprehension acquisition through shared storybook reading. DTPK
(The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) consists of curricular activities centered on themes,
with eight authentic children’s books for each theme, (i.e. all about me and my body, animals,
and nature around us). Within the themes, the researchers developed specific instructional

36

routines to teach the specific comprehension and vocabulary instruction strategies for each book.
For example, there are multiple levels of questions that teachers asked before, during, and after
reading the text, targeting the continuum of higher-level thinking. These questions, which target
comprehension development, include: (1) guiding questions (2) checking for understanding
questions (3) contextualized questions, which focus on simple recall of story details and (4)
decontextualized questions which include strategy instruction in comparing, summarizing,
inferring, explaining, predicting and problem solving.
Furthermore, to support the children’s comprehension, DTPK (The Children’s Learning
Institute, 2010) incorporated text structure organizers into the curriculum to provide children
with the semantic tools to mediate and organize their comprehension performance (Landry,
2011; Neuman, 2011). The DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) curriculum includes
several organizing tools to aid teachers in comprehension strategy instruction, including: (1)
characters and setting t-chart (2) event sequencing map (3) story retell with pictures from the
story (4) storytellers, which allow the students to use their own language to retell the story (5)
concept sort (6) cause and effect (7) graphic organizer to evaluate the story by using their senses
(8) Venn diagrams and (9) KWL charts.
Additionally, DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) includes instruction on tier
two vocabulary words that are not part of most children’s everyday vocabulary (Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan, 2002), and high-frequency words that have multiple meanings (Beck et al.,
2002). Each story has six preselected tier two words, which are highlighted during the story. As
each word is introduced, the teacher apprentices the students through presenting a child friendly
definition, using the word in a supportive sentence, and having the children act out the word.

37

Research has shown children need to repeatedly interact with new vocabulary words in
order to ensure that mastery and retention is achieved (Tuckwiller et al., 2004). The DTPK (The
Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) program has enhancements that allow teachers to provide
repeated exposures to the tier two vocabulary words. These enhancement activities include: (1)
example and non-examples of each of the tier two words (2) acting the word out (3) asking
questions about pictures to enhance deep understanding of tier two words (4) development of a
semantic web (5) word associations (6) draw and write about the tier two word, (7) discussion
about pictures that depict various contexts of the tier two vocabulary words (8) how much can
you tell me, which starts with a simple sentence and students add additional information to
develop higher-level complex sentences.
Zucker et al., (in press) evaluated DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) in a
study that consisted of 39 preschool classrooms that included students at risk for learning
difficulties. The study was conducted in daily sessions for 4-weeks in duration. A pretestposttest design was utilized to study the performance gains of students over time. The results
showed that students who received intervention made significant improvements on their
receptive vocabulary skills (d=.81).
Intervention theoretical framework. Both KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK
(The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) instantiate features of the theoretical frameworks that
were outlined in the initial section of the literature review, all of which have overlap in how
children’s learning is constructed. A primary theme that characterizes both programs is that
children learn through engaging in literate behaviors with adults as they acquire literacy skills
through a developmental continuum. KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The Children’s
Learning Institute, 2010) feature the design of activity settings in which the adult and student

38

participate in the emergent literacy skills in both small group and large group settings, with
adults engaging in literacy behaviors through read-aloud or modeling formats. Furthermore, the
nature of KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010)
interventions feature lessons where the teacher and child work together, with the teacher
apprenticing the child in alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary,
comprehension, and concepts about print.
A second common theme is the emphasis on providing students with multiple practice
opportunities. KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) teaches the same concepts multiple times within and
across lessons prior to advancing to more challenging activities. It also employs a Model (Watch
Me) – Lead (Do It with Me) – Test (By yourself) format, transferring control of learning from
the adult to the child. DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) teaches vocabulary and
comprehension by using explicit strategies and re-reading the stories, allowing additional
practice.
The final common theme that characterizes both programs is the recognition that the
acquisition of emergent literacy skills requires that students learn a secondary discourse, a
discourse that is embedded in the development of a new shared understanding of the literacy
language, behaviors, actions, and knowledge that characterizes effective reading. In social
interactions with skilled language users, KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The
Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) scaffold the development of literacy discourses in multiple
ways. DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) provides access to a literacy discourse by
explicitly teaching not only vocabulary and comprehension but also offering symbolic tools (i.e.
graphic organizers) that scaffold learning. The KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) program develops a
literacy and metalinguistic discourse surrounding letter names, sounds, and phonological

39

awareness through multiple practice opportunities, and through learning arrangements that
progress from teacher modeling to partner tutoring.
In summary, the ultimate goal is for children to become independent, literate individuals.
In order for children to reach this goal, the social interactions surrounding literacy must be
designed so that children can access and internalize the literacy processes that will help them to
become independent and literate individuals. The purpose of this study was to bundle and
integrate two effective literacy programs (KPALS and DTPK) in order to offer a solid foundation
for developing emergent literacy skills among preschool students, and to evaluate the efficacy of
the multicomponent and hybridized preschool intervention based on its potential merits to
improve the literacy outcomes of the students.
Study Context
As stated, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a tier one literacy
intervention in a preschool classroom on emergent literacy skills. The literacy intervention
incorporated evidence-based practices that were essential to the development of emergent
literacy skills, including emphases on: alphabetic knowledge (i.e., letter names and letter
sounds), phonological awareness (i.e., sound segmentation, initial sound phonemes, and
rhyming), and book reading activities to promote vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts
about print. The intervention was a programmatic hybrid based on the KPALS program (Mathes
et al., 2001), which targets alphabetic knowledge and phonological awareness. In addition, the
intervention incorporated DPTK (The Children’s Learning Institute), which offered instruction in
vocabulary, comprehension and print awareness. (See Table 1 for literacy skills and intervention
component, and assessment of skills match - below).

40

To measure performance gains, a preschool universal literacy screener was employed,
Preschool Early Literacy Indicator (PELI; Kaminski & Brave-Aguayo, 2010). This screener
evaluated performance on alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary and oral
language, and comprehension. These data were verified by the use of the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2009). The study also
utilized a curriculum-based vocabulary assessment, sight words, lower case letter names and
sounds, and the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) (Dickinson, McCabe,
& Sprague, 2001). To gather additional information about print awareness, this study included a
measure of concepts about print through the Michigan Language and Literacy Profile, or MLLP
(2001). (See Table 1 for literacy skills and intervention component, and assessment of skills
match - below).
Table 1
Literacy Skills, Intervention, and Assessment
Literacy Skill (Indicator
Intervention
According to the NELP):
Component:
Alphabetic Knowledge
KPALS
Zoo Phonics (mandated
by district)
Phonological Awareness

KPALS

Vocabulary

Developing Talkers:
PreK

Concepts about print

Developing Talkers:
PreK
Developing Talkers:
PreK

Comprehension

Assessment
PELI
DIBELS
Lower case letter names
Lower case letter sounds
PELI
DIBELS
PELI
TROLL
Curriculum-based
vocabulary measure
MLPP
PELI
TROLL

This study was designed to contribute to the research literature in several ways. First, the
study investigated the effectiveness of integrating two effective programs, KPALS (Mathes et

41

al., 2001) and Developing Talkers: Pre-K (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010), which
focused on different aspects of early literacy into a single intervention. Second, this study
targeted alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts
about print. Most intervention studies only implement and evaluate the efficacy of a specific
instructional component related to emergent literacy (Bailet et al., 2009; Bradley & Bryant,
1985; Bunn et al., 2005; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000; Hindman et al., 2008; Justice et al., 2003;
Justice and Ezell, 2000; McGinty, Briet-Smith, Fan, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2011; Schnieder et
al., 2000; Share, 2004; Silverman & Crandell, 2010; Tuckwiller et al., 2010; Zucker et al., in
press). However, given the relationship of all five components to reading achievement, this
study’s intervention offered a multicomponent and integrated literacy approach that was
designed to meet the needs of a majority of students in a tier 1 preschool program. This
intervention program was implemented in combination with the district-mandated curriculum,
Zoo Phonics. Third, this intervention was delivered for 12-weeks and implemented four times
weekly for a total of 48 sessions to offer a more intense and concentrated dosage of literacy
instruction. Most interventions range from ten to 24 sessions, over a three to ten week period
and offering 2-3 sessions per week. Thus, this study’s intervention offered a more intense
program that nearly doubled the dosage that is most typically provided in literacy interventions at
the preschool level.

42

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Participants
Preschool classrooms. Participants in this investigation were preschool aged children
(four- year-olds to five-year-olds). Participants were enrolled in various preschool classes in a
large, public school in western Michigan. The district offered a variety of early childhood
programs including: daycare (ages two and a half through fifth grade), Head Start programs,
Great Start Readiness Preschool (GSRP), Early Childhood Special Education, and tuition-based
developmental preschool classrooms. This investigation targeted the GSRP programs, a tuitionbased developmental preschool, and a young five’s class.
The GSRP program was funded by the State of Michigan. It served children who were
st

four-years-old prior to December 1 , and was free for students who met the family income and
risk factor criteria set forth by the State of Michigan. GSRP was located within three of the
district’s elementary school buildings. GSRP had adopted the Creative Curriculum (Dodge et
al., 2002), which focused on meeting the individual students’ strengths and needs. The GSRP
program met four days a week for three hours daily. All classrooms had one classroom teacher,
a teacher assistant, and 16 children.
The tuition-based developmental preschool program was located in one of the seven
elementary schools, serving children who were four-years-old. The tuition-based developmental
preschool program adopted Creative Curriculum (Dodge, et al., 2002). Classes were held five
days a week for two and a half hours a day, in which there was a lead teacher, assistant teacher,
and 18 children. The cost for the five-day program was $505. There were scholarships available
for those who needed tuition assistance. The criterion for tuition assistance was the same as the

43

GSRP classrooms. Specific group characteristics are discussed further in the participant
demographics section.
The young five’s classroom was located in an elementary building and served children
st

who were five-years-old by December 1 of the school year. The young five’s program also
used the Creative Curriculum (Dodge et al., 2002) and was in session five days a week for three
hours. The classroom consisted of a teacher, teacher assistant, and up to 18 enrolled children.
All programs were aligned with the Pre-Kindergarten State of Michigan Early Learning
Standards (Michigan State Board of Education, 2005), and the district kindergarten-twelfth grade
curriculum. Finally, all preschool programs were located within the local elementary buildings,
and were licensed according to the State of Michigan Child-Care Standards. Due to the teaching
assignment variables already in place (i.e., Teacher A having two sections of GSRP and Teacher
C having one section of GSRP and one section of Young Five’s) the groups were assigned to
condition to ensure comparability in student ages and class size across conditions (See Table 2
and Table 3, below). Teachers A and C were balanced between conditions, respectively, across
experimental and control because they each taught two classes of 16 students. Likewise Teacher
B and D were balanced across conditions, respectively, across experimental and control because
they each taught one class of 18 students, the teachers were not randomly assigned to condition.
The statistical analysis controlled for any group differences at pre-test to ensure comparability
among groups, because random assignment was not possible. There were 50 students each in the
experimental and control groups for a total of 100 students.

44

Table 2
Group Assignment for Dissertation Sample
Class Type
Students
Total Classes
Per Class
(Max)
Young Five’s
18
1
(5days/week)
GSRP
16
1
(4 days/week)

Experimental

Teacher A

16

Experimental

Teacher A

16

Experimental

Teacher B

18

2

Control

Teacher C

32

1

18

Teachers

1

4-5 year old
(5days/week)

Assignment

Total
Students

Control

Teacher D

18

Total Number of Students in all classes
Total Number of Students in Experimental Group
Total Number of Students in Control Group
Table 3
Classroom Characteristics
Program
Creative
Curriculum
Young Five’s
Yes
GSRP

Yes

Tuition

Yes

Location
Elementary
Building
Elementary
Building
Elementary
Building

100
50
50

Child-Care
Licensed
Yes

Students Atrisk
88%

Yes

100%

Yes

78%

District demographics. The school district served students preschool through twelfth
grade. Enrollment in kindergarten through twelfth grade was approximately 6,000 students.
There were seven elementary buildings (grades K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), and two
high schools (grades 9-12). The school district had a graduation rate of 84%.
According to the district’s 2009-2010 annual report all schools received a rating of A on
the State of Michigan’s report card, except the alternative high school. All schools made
adequate yearly progress (AYP) except the alternative high school, which is based off the
45

Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) results, percentage of students taking the
MEAP, and attendance and/or graduation rates, in addition all subgroups of students made AYP.
The district exceeded the proficiency standards set forth by the state in reading, mathematics, and
science with proficiency rates of 94.1%, 92.8%, and 91%, respectfully. The students in the
th

kindergarten through 12 grade system are 91% Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 2% multi-racial, 2%
Black-not Hispanic, 2% Asian, less than 1% American Indian, and less than 1% Hawaiian
Pacific Islander. The district has a rate of 12% of students in special education and 32% of
students qualifying for free or reduced lunch.
Participant demographics. Participants in this study were four-year-old to five-year-old
children (n=100) enrolled in pre-kindergarten programming. There were a total of 100 children
enrolled in the pre-kindergarten programming over the course of the intervention. The
experimental group and control group included 50 participants each. The demographics of the
entire sample (n=100) consisted of 56% males (n=56) and 44% females (n=44). The
experimental group consisted of 50% females (n=24) and 50% males (n=24). The control group
was 62% male (n=31) and 38% female (n=19). The average age of student at onset of the
intervention was four years six month and at the conclusion of the intervention the average age
was four years nine months. For specific information on demographics see Table 4.
The demographics of the preschool classrooms mirrored the demographics of the district
at large. The students overall were 88% White, 8% Hispanic, 3% Black, and 1% Asian. There
were not any students of American Indian or Hawaiian Pacific Islander within the sample. The
experimental group consisted of 88% White students, 6% Hispanic students, 4% Black students,
and 2% Asian students. The control group contained 88% White students, 10% Hispanic
students, and 2% Black students.
46

The entire sample had 89% if the students who were 200% below federal poverty
guidelines which equated to an annual income of less that $46,000 for a family of four, and 11%
of the students were above the federal poverty line which was $69,000 for a family of four. The
experimental group had 96% of the families living in poverty, and 4% who were not in poverty.
The control group had 82% of the families in poverty and 18% above the poverty threshold. See
Table 4 for specifics on classroom demographics.
Table 4
Classroom Characteristics and Participant Demographics
Group
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Working
(onset)
Parents
Overall
56 Males
4 yrs 6
88 White
93 Working
44 Females
mo
8 Hispanic
7 not working
3 Black
1 Asian
Experimental
24 Males
4 yrs 8
44 White
46 Working
24 Females
mo.
3 Hispanic
4 not working
2 Black
1 Asian
Control
31 Males
4 yrs 5
44 White
47 Working
19 Females
mo.
5 Hispanic
3 not working
1 Black
0 Asian

Income
89 below poverty
11 above poverty
48 below poverty
2 above poverty
41 below poverty
9 above poverty

Design
A pretest - posttest research design was utilized in this investigation. Data was collected
three times throughout the study. The first data collection in the fall was administered during the
first two weeks of October. The second data collection in the winter occurred during the first
week of January. The final period of data collection in the spring occurred during the third week
of April.
The fall data collection was conducted prior to the start of the study, so the data obtained
was not as comprehensive as the winter and spring data collection periods. Due to these

47

complexities, the fall data collection was used to compare groups to determine their equivalence
at the beginning of the school year. However, fall data was not used in the analysis of
intervention impact, other than to offer additional information about the entire sample as well as
the relative comparability of the treatment and control groups. Since the intervention was
implemented starting in January, the winter data collection (January) served as the baseline or
pre-test measurement of students’ literacy performance. The third and final data collection,
spring (April), was used as a post-test to determine the relative performance of the two groups at
the conclusion of the intervention.
Setting
This research was conducted in an authentic preschool classroom setting. This
naturalistic environment created challenges that precluded the random assignment of subjects to
conditions, or matching students on specific traits before assignment to classrooms. Due to these
constraints, the teachers were assigned to experimental and control groups based on researcher
assignment in which every attempt was made to create experimental and control groups that were
as similar as possible based on certain demographics (i.e., age of students, tuition vs. grant
programs, etc.). After assignment there were minor differences between groups (See Table 2,
Table 3, and Table 4). However, initial data analysis indicated student performance across
groups was equal, which will be discussed in the data analysis section. Due to the group
complexity group differences were accounted for to the maximum extent possible in the data
analysis.
There were four teachers who participated in the study. See Table 5 for detailed
characteristics of the teacher participants. All teachers were White females. The experimental
group consisted of one teacher (Teacher A) with nine years experience. Teacher A had her

48

professional teaching certificate through the State of Michigan and was certified in elementary
education kindergarten through fifth grade, reading specialist sixth through eighth grade, and had
her early childhood endorsement. Additionally, Teacher A obtained her Masters in early
childhood education. The other experimental teacher (Teacher B) had two years teaching
experience. Teacher B had her provisional teaching certificate through the State of Michigan
and was certified in elementary education kindergarten through fifth grade, language arts sixth
through eighth grade, had her early childhood endorsement, and was half-way through her early
childhood masters coursework.
The control group teachers were similar to the treatment group teachers in that one
teacher (Teacher C) had two years experience and provisional teaching certificate through the
State of Michigan. Teacher C was certified in elementary education kindergarten through fifth
grade, math sixth through eighth grade, had her early childhood endorsement. Teacher C was
approximately halfway through her Masters in early childhood education. Teacher D, the final
control group teacher had her professional teaching certificate through the State of Michigan,
was certified in elementary education kindergarten through fifth grade, language arts sixth
through eighth grade, had her early childhood endorsement, and a Masters in early childhood.
Teacher D had six years of prior experience.

49

Table 5
Teacher Characteristics
Teacher
Assignment

Certificate

Teacher A

Experimental Professional

Teacher B

Experimental

Provisional

Teacher C

Control

Provisional

Teacher D

Control

Professional

Certifications

Masters

Elementary K-5
Reading 6-8
Early Childhood
Elementary K-5
Language Arts 6-8
Early Childhood
Elementary K-5
Math 6-8
Early Childhood
Elementary K-5
Reading 6-8
Early Childhood

Yes

Years of
Experience
9

No

2

No

2

Yes

6

Data Sources
Assessment. There were multiple data sources used to obtain information about the
preschool intervention programs and student outcomes. See Table 6 for the developmental
domains measured by each assessment. The researcher and classroom teacher administered the
fall data collection. All teachers were trained to administer the Preschool Early Literacy
Indicator (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010; PELI) assessment in a three-hour training session,
and inter-rater reliability checks were conducted on 33% of all assessments, ensuring an interrater reliability of 80% at a minimum. The researcher administered the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011; DIBELS) assessment
specifically the First Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency. The teachers who were all previously trained by the local district administered the
concepts about print assessment. However, to guarantee the data was accurately collected interrater reliability checks were conducted and scores were at 100% inter-rater reliability.

50

The winter and spring data collection included the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo,
2010), DIBELS (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011), and concepts of print assessment.
Additionally, there was a lower case letter name and sound assessment, sight word assessment,
curriculum-based vocabulary assessment, and the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy
assessment (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003; TROLL). Advanced psychology students
administered the winter and spring data collection from a local university, to ensure non-biased
assessment. The only assessment that was not administered by the advanced psychology
students was the TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) assessment, which was
completed by the teacher. All university students were trained in the data collection procedures
during a four-hour session, which included the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010),
DIBELS (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011), concepts about print, sight words, lower case
letter names and sounds, and the vocabulary assessment. The inter-rater reliability on all
aforementioned assessments was 98%. Individual inter-rater reliability was at 97% for the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010), 100% for all DIBELS (Dynamic Measurement Group,
2011) measures, 100% for concepts of print, 100% of sight words, 100% for lower case letter
names and sounds, and 100% for the vocabulary assessment.

51

Table 6
Assessments
Literacy Skills

Alphabet
Knowledge
Phonological
Awareness
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Concepts about
print
General
Measure of
Literacy Skills

PELI

DIBELS



MLPP





TROLL

Lower
Case
Letter
Names

Lower
Case
Letter
Sounds








Sight
Words













Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI).
Background on the PELI. The PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) is a preschool
literacy screener. Currently, the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) is an experimental
measure. In 2010, Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo completed the first large-scale (n=130) pilot
study using the PELI tasks. Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo (2010) are continuing to collect data
throughout the United States. The emerging PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) data
shows promise to be a reliable and valid measure of emergent literacy skills.
Administration information on the PELI. The PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)
was administered in its entirety for each data collection session. The PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010) was presented to each child in a print-based book format, with the assessor sitting
next to the child (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010). The assessor administered the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) by following the standard directions, questions, and prompts
set forth by the manual. The PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) was an untimed test
containing four sections: comprehension, alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, and
52

vocabulary/oral language. For the comprehension section the child orally answered questions and
made predictions about the text. The comprehension questions included prediction, information
gathering, and recall. All questions were embedded throughout the text. The child was asked to
name upper case and lower-case letters in the alphabet knowledge portion of the assessment,
presented in a random manner. The phonemic awareness section measured the child’s ability to
identify initial segments and phonemes of words. The vocabulary/oral language portion assessed
the students’ expressive vocabulary, definitional vocabulary, and story retelling. Each section
was scored using raw scores.
Reliability and validity measures of the PELI. Although the PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010) was in the experimental phases of determining reliability and validity of the
measure, the inter-rater reliability on the PELI was .99 (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010),
signifying the measure was consistently administered with similar results. Additional studies
concerning the reliability of the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) are in progress.
Preliminary results of the validation study (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) indicated
the measure also demonstrated concurrent validity in alphabet knowledge, comprehension,
vocabulary and oral language, and phonemic awareness skills. The preliminary results were
analyzed by comparing the subtests on the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) to various
standardized preschool assessments. These standardized assessments included: The Test of
Preschool Early Literacy – Phonemic Awareness portion (TOPEL PA) (C.J. Lonigan, Wagner,
Torgesen, & Rachotte, 2007), The Test of Preschool Early Literacy – print knowledge portion
(TOPEL PK) (C.J. Lonigan et al., 2007), Get Ready to Read (GRTR) (G.J. Whitehurst, Lonigan,
Fletcher, Molfese, & Torgesen, 2010), Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF)

53

(Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 1995), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn &
Dunn, 2007).
The alphabet knowledge total portion of the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)
correlated highly (.77) with TOPEL PK (C.J. Lonigan et al., 2007). Upper case and lower case
letter knowledge also correlated highly with the TOPEL PK, (C.J. Lonigan et al., 2007), with a
coefficient at .79 and .65 respectively (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010). The phonemic
awareness total correlated with the CELF (.67) (Semel et al., 1995). The vocabulary/oral
language portion of the PELI correlated with the CELF (Semel et al., 1995) at .68 (Kaminski &
Bravo-Aguayo, 2010). Additionally, the comprehension portion of the PELI correlated at a rate
of .67 with the CELF (Semel et al., 1995). The results are all preliminary, but overall the PELI
total score correlated more highly with the language tests (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010).
The alphabet knowledge portion was highly correlated with the TOPEL PK (C.J. Lonigan et al.,
2007). Information concerning the validity of the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) is
presented in Table 7.

54

Table 7
Correlations of PELI with Other Standardized Preschool Assessments
TOPEL TOPEL GRTR
CELF
PPVT
PA
PK
(n=45)
(n=45) (n=130) (n=44)
(n=46)
Total PELI Score
.43
.42
.59
.77
.62
Alphabet Knowledge Total
.36
.77
.56
.13
.48
Upper Case Letters
.38
.79
.60
.17
.45
Lower Case Letters
.29
.65
.45
.11
.46
Phonemic Awareness Total
.28
.06
.40
.67
.45
Vocabulary/Oral Language
.37
.36
.56
.68
.59
Total
Name Pictures
.27
.29
.50
.57
.67
Tell about Pictures
.30
.29
.42
.61
.42
Story Retell
.29
.26
.39
.42
.31
Comprehension
.34
.42
.51
.67
.54
The Test of Preschool Early Literacy – Phonemic Awareness portion (TOPEL PA), The Test of
Preschool Early Literacy – print knowledge portion (TOPEL PK), Get Ready to Read (GRTR),
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (PPVT)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (2011; DIBELS). The DIBELS
measures were created to assess literacy skills in kindergarten through sixth grade students
(Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). The goal of the DIBELS assessment is to measure the
foundational skills, which impact reading success (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). For
the purposes of this study, the DIBELS (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) subtests related to
letter naming fluency, first sound fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency measures were
administered. The DIBELS (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) measure was selected as a
secondary confirmatory measure because the concepts being measured (letter naming fluency,
first sound fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency) were also assessed using the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010), just in a different manner. The students’ scores were not
compared to kindergarten benchmarks instead the scores were used to further describe the data
collected surrounding letter naming and phonemic awareness. In the next section, the DIBELS
(Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) subtests are further explained.
55

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF). The LNF measure assessed a child’s knowledge of letter
names (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). Upper and lower case letters were presented to
the child in a random order (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). The measure was
administered using the standardized administration and scoring protocols. The scores for LNF
were raw scores.
First Sound Fluency (FSF). The FSF measure was designed as an indicator of a child’s
phonemic awareness abilities (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). FSF measured the child’s
ability to identify the initial sound in the word. The measure was administered using the
standardized assessment and scoring protocols. FSF was scored using raw scores.
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF). The PSF measures a child’s phonemic awareness
abilities (Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). PSF tested children’s ability to segment words
in individual phonemes. The measures were administered using the standardized assessment and
scoring protocols. Raw scores were used in the PSF measure.
Michigan literacy progress profile. The district had adopted the use of the Michigan
Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) for the concepts about print measure.
Concepts about print. The assessor administered the concepts about print assessment
individually to each child. The assessor presented the child with a developmentally appropriate
storybook, and asked the child to point to specific book components (i.e. cover, period, word).
For each correct answer the child was awarded one point, with a total of 22 points possible.
Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL). The TROLL (Dickinson,
McCabe, Sprague, 2003) was designed to evaluate students oral language and literacy skills
based on teacher rating. The TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) consisted of 25
questions surrounding language and literacy skill development. The teacher questionnaire was

56

completed in five to ten minutes with language, reading, and writing subscales. The tool had
high internal consistency with alpha ratings at .89 (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003).
Additionally, the TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) showed moderate correlations
with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997), the Emergent Literacy
Profile (Dickinson & Chaney, 1997), and the Early Phonemic Awareness Profile (Dickinson &
Chaney, 1997). The TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) was administered twice at
the winter and spring assessment times.
The TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) assessment was divided into three
sections: language use, reading, and writing. Each section had multiple questions that were
scored on a one to four point lickert scale. The points were summed for each section as well as
an overall raw score. The language portion of the assessment evaluated a student’s ability to
start conversations, communicate about personal experiences, ask questions, the quality of
language use the classroom, as well as the quality of vocabulary. The reading section examined
the student’s behavior towards books (i.e. like to be read to), the child’s ability to “read” on their
own, as well as pre-reading skills (i.e. word recognition, name recognition, ability to recognize
letters). The writing section of the TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, Sprague, 2003) considered the
quality of writing, imitation of writing behaviors, and attitude towards writing.
Curriculum-based vocabulary measure. The curriculum-based vocabulary measure was
added as an assessment measure based on the recommendation of the dissertation committee.
The curriculum-based vocabulary measure consisted of specific vocabulary targets that were
included in the DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010). The DPTK (The Children’s
Learning Institute, 2010) curriculum consisted of three themes, with eight books in each theme,

57

of which three books were randomly selected. From the randomly selected books three of the six
vocabulary targets were also randomly selected.
The vocabulary assessment was video taped (pre and post) to ensure that the assessor
recorded each child’s response verbatim. After reviewing ten percent (n=20) of the videos the
reliability was 99%. This was calculated using a point-by-point method. There were not any
patterns in the errors. The most common errors were recording the word “a” instead of “the”
which did not lead to misinterpretation of the child’s response.
The vocabulary assessment was scored by the development of a rubric. To determine an
appropriate rubric 20% of the vocabulary assessments, both pre and post were selected, which
equated to 40 assessments. The point allocations were as follows: zero points: gave an unrelated
or incorrect answer; one point: gave an example of the word meaning; two points: gave an
example with a partial definition; three points: gave a full, correct definition of the target word.
For initial rubric development the responses were recorded for each answer on the rubric to
determine patterns of answers. During initial rubric development this researcher and an advance
psychology student both scored the curriculum-based vocabulary measure. The inter-rater
reliability was 90% on the initial rubric, as certain answers needed clarification. After the initial
development a tenured-faculty member reviewed the rubric and recommended application to the
larger sample. To ensure non-biased scoring the researcher and psychology student
independently scored another 10% of the curriculum-based vocabulary measures in which interrater reliability was 100% based on the final rubric. The psychology student then scored the
remainder of the curriculum-based vocabulary assessment as an unbiased party, who was blind to
conditions (See Appendix A Curriculum-Based Vocabulary Assessment Measure and Rubric for
complete measure and rubric).

58

Lower case letter names and sounds. Lower case letter names and sounds were assessed
through the use of all lower case letters being presented in a random order on a single sheet of
paper. The assessor pointed to each letter and asked the student to name the letter. This was
done for a total of 28 lower case letters, which presented the letter g and a in two formats (i.e., g
and g, a and a).
Lower case letter sounds were also presented using the same page of letters as the letter
name assessment. The assessor would first probe the student about letter names and then follow
up with letter sounds after all 28 letter names were requested. For both assessments the student
response was marked correct or incorrect with one point granted for correct responses and zero
points for incorrect responses. The total score was a summed score of correct responses for both
lower case letter names and lower case letter sounds.
Sight words. The sight word assessment was generated from the district’s kindergarten
sight word list. The list contained Dolch words as well as common beginning sight words. The
students were presented with each word on a 4x6 index card and were given a chance to respond.
Correct responses were granted one point and incorrect responses were allocated zero points.
The total score was a summed score of correct responses. See Appendix B Sight Word
Assessment List for the sight word list.
Intervention
The intervention consisted of targeted instruction in alphabet knowledge, phonological
awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print. The intervention lasted 12
weeks, and was administered by the classroom teacher with the support of the classroom
assistant. Both experimental teachers attended a three-hour training on the intervention. Topics
covered in the training included introduction to the intervention and targetted literacy areas in the

59

interventions. Teachers also received a detailed manual on both the K-PALS (Mathes et al.,
2001) and the DTPK (The Children’s Learning Insitute, 2010). Furthermore, the training
consisted of practicing the two interventions with feedback from the researcher. Teachers left
the training with all materials, handbooks, and a calendar outlining the lessons for each day. For
DTPK (The Children’s Learning Insitute, 2010), teachers received a copy of the picture books
correlated to each theme, together with the DTPK (The Children’s Learning Insitute, 2010) daily
lesson plans related to the weekly themes.
After the training session the researcher provided assistance to the teachers twice within
the first two weeks of the intervention. The goal of these sessions were to assist the teacher in
the implementation of the intervention. The researcher was present for an entire session, or a
total of three hours each session. During this time the researcher assisted with daily acitivties but
with the primary purpose was providing feedback to the teachers on the implementation of the
intervention, specifically K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The Children’s Learning
Insitute, 2010). After the first session the researcher provided the teachers with feedback about
DTPK (The Children’s Learning Insitute, 2010) which encompassed a reminder to not only read
the prompts within the story according to the correct day, but also to ask the before reading and
after reading questions. The teachers were implementing K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) with
fidelity at the first coaching session. The second coaching session occurred the subsequent week
to see how the feedback was incorporated into the lessons to ensure fidelity of implementation.
Again, this session the teachers were implementing the K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001)
intervention with 100% fidelity as well as the DTPK (The Children’s Learning Insitute, 2010;
See Appendix C Procedural Fidelity Measure for procedural fidelity checklist).
Alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness instruction.

60

KPALS instruction. The KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) intervention incorporated explicit,
targeted instruction in letter names and sounds, phonological awareness, and phonics. This
evidenced-based practice was used within the preschool setting as a tier 1 intervention, meaning
all students received the intervention. This curriculum was created for students in Kindergarten,
however it shows promise for use in a preschool setting with slight modfications (Mannes,
2011). The KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) intervention was scripted, which allowed the teacher to
read the instructional prompts throughout the lesson. The teachers completed 12 weeks of
intervention with four sessions a week, which allowed 48 of the 60 lessons to be completed.
The lessons consisted of the students engaging in the name game, which had students
name each of the letters presented in the lesson. The letter sequence was presented twice at the
beginning and in the middle of each lesson. The letter name (upper and lower case) and letter
sound corespondences were taught in tadem starting with the first lesson and contiuning through
lesson 48. The letter names and sounds were introduced according to the schedule set forth by
the KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) curriculum and included consistent review as new letter names
and sounds were introduced.
The additional component of KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) taught students phonological
awareness skills. The lessons taught students about rhyming, initial sounds, last sounds, and
blending and segmenting words. By Lesson 48, students were presented with 21 upper and
lower case letter names and correspnding letter sounds (I, U, X, Y, and Z were not introduced),
phonological awareness instruction involving CVC words, as well as decoding VC and CVC
words with short vowels. See Table 8 (below) for specific information on the intervention
components, procedures, and target skills.

61

During KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) instruction the students each received a copy of the
corresponding reproducible sheet. The student was then able to follow along with the teacher.
Additionally, the sheet was sent home daily with the child.
KPALS modifications. There were two modifications made to the K-PALS (Mathes et
al., 2001) curriculum. First, the instruction was delivered in a small group context instead of
whole group and pairing students. The rationale for this modification was explicit emergent
literacy instruction is vital to ensuring that all students are prepared as possible to become
conventional readers and writers (Landry, 2011; National Reading Panel, 2000; Phillips &
Piasta, 2013).
Another modification made to the K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) curriculum was the
duration of the activity. Instead of 20-minutes session, the teachers presented students with 10minute sessions. This modification was made due to the preschool childrens’ shorter attention
span as well as research indicating that 10-minutes of repetitive instruction can make a difference
in student skills when it is targeted and explicit (Landry, 2011).
Vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print instruction. The K-PALS
(Mathes et al., 2001) program provided a strong base for many emergent literacy skills, however,
three additional early literacy components were included to complete the essential emergent
literacy skills necessary for effective early literacy programs outlined by the National Early
Literacy Panel Report (2008). These three literacy activities were concepts about print,
vocabulary, and comprehension, all of which were targetted during explicit implementation of
shared book reading using the DTPK curriculum (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010).
Developing Talkers: PreK. The DPTK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010)program
included 12-weeks of vocabulary and comprehension instruction, targetted in a shared book

62

reading context. The DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) program included detailed
and scripted lesson plans for the teachers to follow concerning vocabulary and comprehension
strategies as a tier 1 shared reading strategy. The story served as the platform to target both
comprehension and vocabulary. The target vocabulary in each of the intervention stories were
tier two words (Beck et al., 2002). Tier two words are words which are encoutred in reading
infrequently and have multiple meanings (Pentimonti, Justice, & Piasta, 2013). The series was
designed to read the story two consecutive days, with specific targets each day.
The story always began with comprehension question which was used to evaluate and
elicit student knowledge prior to reading the story. The first day focused on generalized
knowledge whereas the second day the questions focused on application. For example, the book
My Five Senses by Aliki presented reading comprehension questions on the first day about
students’ background knowledge, e.g., “What are the five sense?” On the second day, the
question was, “When was a time you used your five senses?” The opening questions always
offered teachers additional scaffolds to help probe children’s thoughts. For example, the first
day follow-up question is “What makes you think so?” On the other hand, day two the follow-up
statement was, “Tell me something you learned about our five senses.” This strategy is an
example of how the litearcy learning was scaffolded to support students’ participation in the
lesson discourse, moving from contextualized to decontextualized or applied comprehension
questions. Furthermore, prior to reading the story, the DPTK (The Children’s Learning Institute,
2010) guide always provided a cognitive prompt that cued the students what to think about while
the story is being read. The example for this story was, “After we finish reading we are going to
talk about the book. There is one question I especially want you to think about as we read:
‘What are the five senses’?”

63

Throughout the story read aloud, there were both contextualized questions and
decontextualized questions. On the first day, the focus was on understanding the story through
contextualized questions, which were embedded in to the story (i.e., What can he see?). On the
second day, the questions were focused on the experiences of individual students, allowing for
additional internalization of the story and how it related to them. These decontextualized
questions were also embedded throughout the story (i.e., What do you see?). Additionally, the
decontextualized entailed students using contextual cues to answer and predict the answers (i.e.
“How does the boy use all four senses at once?). Both days the concluding comprehension
question after reading was a restatement of the opening question.
All of the strategies listed within the book follow a dialogic reading sequence in which
the adult and child interact, making the child an active participant in the story, promoting verbal
participation (Pentimonti, et al., 2013). The tenets of dialogic reading include cloze procedures,
a form of scaffolding to guide children to success, asking wh- questions, and making text-to-life
connections (Pentimonti, et al., 2013). All of the comprehension strategies and vocabulary
instruction follow the scaffolding of children’s learning to promote errorless learning. The
vocabulary instructional components are described below.
The vocabulary target words were also embedded into the story. All vocabulary targets
were pre-determined by the curriculim and were all tier two words, meaning that they are words
with “relatively low frequency but are considered to be very useful; they often offer a more
precise and mature way of desribing a basic concept or idea,” (Pentimonti, et al., 2013, p. 123).
This manner of selecting words from books coincides with the current research in that children
are more likely to learn words that are expanded upon in books than words that are not within a
shared reading context (Justice et al., 2005; Pentimonti, Justice, & Piasta, 2013). The instruction

64

surrounding the vocabulary words included definitions, manners in which to teach the
vocabulary, supporting picture cues, and activities.
DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) included a scope and sequence for each
unit as well as scripted lesson plans and all supporting materials. See Table 8 for specific
information on the intervention components, procedures, and target skills.
Concepts about print. First, print referencing (Ezell & Justice, 2000) encourages early
literacy skills. Print referencing was performed when the adult was reading to the child in a
shared storybook context. The adult provided both non-verbal and verbal references to print,
providing exposure to key literacy principles (Justice & Pullen, 2003). Specific principles by
Ezell and Justice (2000): “(1) ask questions about print, (2) make comments about print, (3) pose
requests about print, (4) point to print when talking about the story, and (5) track the print when
reading; will guide the print referencing portion of the intervention” (p. 107). Since the DTPK
did not have print referencing included in the intervention the researcher developed cue cards
based on Justice and Ezell’s (2000) work. The cards were included in each story book and
served as a prompt to reference print throughout the story. See Appendix D Concepts about
Print Cue Card for a sample. See Table 8 (below) for specific information on the intervention
components, procedures, and target skills.
Time spent in intervention. The multi-component and integrated literacy intervention
was multi-faceted and occurred at various times throughout the instructional day. The K-PALS
component of the intervention occured in small groups for 10-minutes per instructional day.
Furthermore, the Developing Talkers: PreK program along with concepts about print instruction
was administered in the DTPK curriculum during story time and was be approximently 10-15

65

minutes in length. See Table 8 for specific information on the intervention components,
procedures, and target skills.
Table 8
Daily Intervention Components
Intervent- Duration
Total
ion
Minutes
Component
KPALS
10
480
minutes
minutes
12 weeks
4
sessions/w
eek
Developi
ng
Talkers:
PreK

10-15
minutes
12 weeks
4
sessions/w
eek

480-720
minutes

Instructional
Group

Target
Literacy
Skills

Procedures

Treatment
Group

Small
Group

Alphabet
Knowledge
Phonological
Awareness

Follow
Scripted
Lessons

Experimental

Large
Group

Vocabulary
Comprehensi
on
Concepts
about Print

Follow
Scripted
Lessons

Experimental

Reviewed
all letters
daily

Experimental
and Control

Zoo
5 minutes
240
Large
Alphabet
Phonics
12 weeks
minutes
Group
Knowledge
(mandate
4
d by the
sessions/w
district)
eek
*See procedural checklist for specific procedural components
Procedural Fidelity

There were multiple measures used to account for the procedural fidelity of the
intervention implementation. First, each teacher’s instruction was video-taped five times
throughout the intervention to examine the procedural fidelity. Additionally, there were three
unannounced observations to ensure the instruction was occuring as set forth by this proposal, on
top of the two initial coaching sessions within the first two weeks of the intervention. Finally,
the teacher provided the researcher with a copy of the lesson plans. These measures were
conducted to to ensure the accurate implementation of the integrated literacy intervention.
66

The teachers received training and were provide with two follow-up sessions to ensure
full understanding of the intervention and curriculum. The teachers were assigned five weeks in
which to video tape. The video tapes were reviewed for multiple components which included:
adherance to KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) instruction, adherence to DTPK (The Children’s
Learning Institute, 2010) curriculum, and concepts about print references. The KPALS (Mathes
et al., 2001) instruction was implemented with high fidelity within the video taped sessions
which was at 94% fidelity of implementation. The DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute,
2010) was broken down into before reading, during reading, and after reading implementation
which were at 80%, 85%, and 82% respectively. Concepts about print implementation was at
95% (See Appendix C Procedural Fidelity Measure for procedural fidelity checklists).
The three unannounced visits were similar to the video taped sessions in frequency of
implementation. KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) was implemented at 96%, DTPK (The Children’s
Learning Institute, 2010) before reading at 83%, during reading 90%, after reading 86%, and
concepts about print at 96%. After the three unannounced visits the researcher reviewed the
results with the teacher. Additionally, the lesson plans were collected and the correct lessons
were indicated in the lesson plans, however, there was not a mechanism to ensure that the lessons
were taught.
Control Group
The control group teachers, who were different from the experimental group teachers,
participated in literacy instruction strategies set forth by the district. The intervention was
offered to all teachers and classrooms after the completion of the study. Literacy instruction in
the control group was videotaped eight times to determine the nature and scope of the instruction

67

and there were three unannounced visits. Lesson plans were provided to the researcher to verify
the literacy practices occured daily within the classroom environemnt.
Literacy instruction included a letter of the week in which the children had multiple
opportunities and activities which focused on the sound and letter name associated with the letter
of the week. In addition, the children participated in centers of which some had a literacy focus.
Every session the teacher selected a story to read aloud to the children. Addtionally, all
preschool classrooms used the Zoo Phonics curriculum to teach letter names and sounds. The
control group of students received the standard readiness instruction offered by the district in the
developmental preschool programs. This included literacy instruction during circle time, center
time, and story time (See Table 9 for classroom schedules). The literacy instruction was rooted in
a developmental perspective. Weekly the students were introduced to a letter a week, there were
activties that the teachers created to target the weekly letter and letter sound. The curriculum was
generated by the individual teacher, and did not follow a research based or standard published
curriculum.
During story time there were some common themes that emerged from reviewing the
videos. The control group teachers engaged in before reading, during reading, and after reading
strategies. This included making predictions about the text before reading based on the front
cover as well as pointing out concepts about print such as the title, author, and where to begin
reading. Throughout the story the control group teachers asked questions about the story
sequence (i.e., What is the character doing?) as well as text to self questions (i.e., Have you ever
played with balloons?). Furthermore, throughout reading of the text the teacher would point out
concepts about print, such as the first word on a page, the first and last letter of a word, and
punctuation. After reading strategies included asking questions about what occurred within the

68

text (i.e., Who was the story about? What happened in the story?). The control group teachers
had access to the books from the intervention, however, they were not provided with any of the
DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) lessons or curriculum materials. According to
teacher report the teacher’s read 50% of the titles out loud in a large group reading session.
Additional Common Instructional Themes/Components
There were some common curricular features and components that characterized the two
instructional conditions. Both experimental and control groups determined the sequence for the
week by focusing on a letter. For example, one week would focus on the letter “Rr”. During the
week the activities at centers focused on “Rr’ activities. For example, they made rainbows,
found rectangles, and cut out pictures that started with the /r/ sound. This theme was present in
all of the classrooms. The classrooms were all studying the letter “Oo” when the intervention
started and had completed each letter of the alphabet by the conclusion of the intervention.
Additionally, both experimental and control groups used ZooPhonics (Bradshaw &
Wrighton, 1985), which is an instructional multi-sensory method to teach the letter names and
sounds. This was a curriculum that was mandated for implementation by the kindergarten and
pre-kindergarten teachers in the district, and it had been used for several years. The Zoo Phonics
(Bradshaw & Wrighton, 1985) curriculum has an animal that represents each lower case letter of
the alphabet. Instruction is focused on letter sounds prior to letter names. The learning
progression began with the student stating the animal name and letter sound. For example, the
letter ‘a’ was allie alligator, and instruction was ‘allie alligator, /a/, /a/, /a/. All of the
letters/animals are introduced at the same time (See Figure 1). As children begin to master the
animals the letter names are introduced along with the animal in a blended fashion. The
instruction then was, ‘allie alligator’, ‘a’, /a/, /a/, /a/. Finally, the children stop stating the animal

69

name and transition to ‘a’, /a/, /a/, /a/. This program was adopted by the district many years ago
and is still used consistently in the prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. Despite the
popularity of the Zoo Phonics program I was not able to find any peer-reviewed research articles,
which showcase this as an evidenced-based intervention. However, the Zoo Phonics website
does have dissertation and Masters’ thesis papers on their website delineating the results of the
research (www.zoophonics.com/aboutresearch).
Figure 1 Zoo Phonics Sample Letter Sequence

The classrooms all had similar schedules (See Table 9 for classroom schedules) because
they were all district operated programs. The classroom schedule included opening, circle time,
free choice time, small group, snack, story time, and recess. The opening time consisted of the
students entering the classroom and checking in by either writing their name or finding their
name based on the teacher’s preference. Following ‘check-in’ the students were able to choose
from two to three fine motor activities set at the tables throughout the classrooms.
Following opening the students then attended circle time in which the teacher provided
instruction on the calendar, beginning math concepts, and reviewing of the zoo phonics letter
names and sounds. Additionally, during the circle time music was integrated at some point.
Free choice time was provided in all classrooms. All of the materials were open in the classroom
and the students were allowed to choose the activities in which they participated. During free
70

choice time the experimental teachers pulled the students to receive the K-PALS instruction, for
eight minutes each small group. The control group teachers occasionally pulled the students to
work on particular skills, but it was inconsistent. All classrooms provided snack for the children
which met all child care licensing standards.
The classrooms also contained a story time in which the teacher selected a book to read in
a large group. The experimental group read the selected book based on the intervention scope
and sequence. The control group also participated in a story time in which the students
participated in a read aloud. To close out the day all of the preschool classrooms had recess
outside on the school playground.
Table 9
Classroom Schedules
Daily Activity
Classroom A
Experimental
Opening
X
Circle Time
X
Free Choice
X
Time
Small Group
X
Snack
X
Story Time
X
Recess
X

Classroom B
Experimental
X
X
X

Classroom C
Control
X
X
X

Classroom D
Control
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

71

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Data Analysis
Independent variable. The independent variable in this study was the emergent literacy
intervention, which included instruction in alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness,
comprehension, vocabulary, and concepts about print through the hybridized and integrated
intervention that was anchored by the teachers’ implementation of the KPALS and DTPK
programs.
Dependent variables included in data analysis.
PELI. The variables included in data analysis were the total PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010) score variable, alphabet knowledge variable, phonological awareness variables,
comprehension variables, and the vocabulary and oral language variables. The total PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) score was a composite score, which consisted of a summed
score, obtained from the alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, comprehension, and
vocabulary and oral language variables.
DIBELS. Letter naming fluency, first sound fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency
were included in data analysis. The raw scores for each dependent measure at the three points in
time were entered into the SPSS database.
TROLL. The variables included in data analysis for the TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe,
Sprague, 2003) assessment were the summed scores for the individual subtests associated with
reading, language, writing, and the total aggregated score. The variables were collected and
analyzed for both the winter and spring test administration.
Additional variables. There were additional variables that were also included in the data
analyses. Those included: curriculum-based vocabulary assessment, lower-case letter names,
72

lower-case letter sounds, sight words, and concepts about print. All of the aforementioned
variables were summed as raw correct scores from the assessments.
Preliminary data analysis. All data were tested for normality and to determine if it met
statistical assumptions. This analysis was conducted by examining the skewness and kurotis, in
combination with examination of the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, and visual inspection of the
normal Q-Q plot. The data were normally distributed for all variables. The sample at the fall
data collection was N=95 with the control condition n=50 and the experimental condition n=45.
From fall collection to winter collection the overall attrition was 3% with two students leaving
from the experimental condition and one student leaving from the control condition. The
experimental condition from fall to winter replaced the two students who left as well as added an
additional three students., bringing the experimental condition sample size to 48 at winter
collection. The student who left the control condition was not able to be replaced by the winter
collection so the control condition sample size at winter data collection was 49. Attrition from
winter to spring was 3% with two students leaving from the control group and one student
leaving from the experimental group. To equalize group size if a student was not present for
both the winter and spring data collections they were removed from the analysis. This action
brought the overall sample size to 94 with both the control and experimental conditions with 47
participants.
Fall analysis results. To ensure equality between groups at the start of the school year,
independent t-tests were conducted on the fall tests. The results within the fall data collection
showed no statistically significant differences between the performance of the experimental and
control groups across all variables, with the exception of the DIBELS first sound fluency t (94) =
-1.47, p > .05. See Table 10 for fall independent t-test results. On the First Sound Fluency

73

assessment, the control group students significantly surpassed the performance of the
experimental students (Experimental: 9.3; Control: 13.42). See Table 11 for fall group means
and standard deviations.
Table 10
Fall Independent t-test Results
Dependent Variable
Df
Total PELI
94
Alphabet
94
Knowledge
Phonemic
94
Awareness
Comprehension
94
Vocabulary and
94
Oral Language
DIBELS
FSF
94
LNF
94
PSF
94
Concepts of Print
94
Note: * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

t
-.67
-.45
-.22

.31

-1.07
-.38

.43
.74

-1.47
-.39
-.86
-.13

74

p-value
.10
.13

.01**
.36
.12
.74

Table 11
Fall and Winter Group Means and Standard Deviations

Winter analysis results. Furthermore, to confirm the comparability of the experimental
and control groups at the start of the study, the winter scores were also analyzed by independent
t-tests to determine group comparability in literacy performance across all dependent measures.
The January pretest assessment revealed that the groups demonstrated similar performance
across all dependent variables, with the exception of two variables: DIBELS first sound fluency
and DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency.
Examination of mean scores revealed that the students in the control group outperformed
the students in the experimental group on both measure (DIBELS first sound fluency: t (94) = 75

1.5, p < .05; DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency: t (94) = -.90, p < .05). The means for
DIBELS first sound fluency for the experimental and control groups were 11.43 and 16.14,
respectively (See Table 12 for the winter independent t-test results). These differences were
fairly large and the control group was approximately half a standard deviation above the
experimental group. Similarly, on the phoneme segmentation fluency assessment, the
experimental group mean was 5.96, whereas the control group mean was 8.04. (See Table 11 for
winter group means and standard deviations). This suggested that the two instructional groups
were somewhat different in their phonological knowledge at the start of the study. Since these
two variables are predictive and have been correlated to later reading achievement (National
Institute of Literacy, 2008; Phillips & Piasta, 2013), this result suggested that the control group
might possess literacy skills that predicted early reading success. Based on this finding, the
remaining data were analyzed by covarying for winter pretest differences.

76

Table 12
Winter Independent t-test results
Df
Dependent Variable
Total PELI

T
.98
.98

.30

1.68
-1.01

.47
.83

-1.75
.69
-.90
6.51
4.49
6.15
7.20
.03

.001***
.43
.05*
.39
.69
.38
.008**
.79

-1.64

.56

-.57
1.02

Alphabet
Knowledge
Phonemic
93
Awareness
Comprehension
93
Vocabulary and
95
Oral Language
DIBELS
FSF
93
LNF
93
PSF
93
TROLL Total
93
TROLL Language
93
TROLL Reading
93
TROLL Writing
93
Lower case letter
93
names
Lower case letter
93
sounds
Concepts of Print
93
Sight Words
93
Note: * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

.37
.17

-.35

93
93

p-value

.83
.62

Research question one. The first research question was stated as follows: “Does
implementation of a research-based literacy intervention have an effect on preschool students’
(4-5-year-olds) emergent literacy skills (a) alphabetic knowledge (b) phonological awareness (c)
vocabulary (d) comprehension (e) concepts about print?”
To answer this question, Pearson Correlations were run followed by Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) to further examine the difference between preschool groups
(experimental, control). Spring posttest scores were adjusted and analyzed using the winter

77

pretest scores as covariates. The following sections will outline the results for alphabet
knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print.
Alphabet knowledge. There were multiple dependent measures for the concept of
alphabet knowledge, which included PELI alphabet knowledge, DIBELS letter naming fluency,
lower case letter names, and lower case letter sounds. The dependent variables measuring the
construct of alphabet knowledge were highly correlated with each other (See Table 13 for
Pearson Correlations). The PELI alphabet knowledge subtest was correlated with lower case
letter names (.89), lower case letter sounds (.64), and DIBELS letter naming fluency (.71).
These results indicated that the construct of alphabet knowledge, as measured by each dependent
variable, was highly predictive of performance on similar alphabet knowledge subtests obtained
from other instruments. On measures of alphabet knowledge, lower case letter sounds was
correlated at the lowest level with the other letter naming assessments being more highly
correlated, though it was still significant at the 0.01 level.
Following Pearson correlations, each alphabet knowledge dependent variable on the
spring posttest was analyzed via ANCOVA to determine group differences, while covarying for
the winter pretest score on each instrument. At the time of the posttest, the ANCOVA revealed
statistically significant differences between the treatment groups on their knowledge of lower
2

case letter sounds, F (1,91) = 53.48, p < .00, ηp =.37, which was associated with a medium
effect size. Upon further examination of group means, the experimental group was almost a full
standard deviation above the control group in the production of letter sounds for lower case
letters (experimental adjusted M =19.53, control adjusted M = 12.32, group SD = 7.83).
The remaining alphabet knowledge variables measured the students’ ability to name
lower case and upper case letters, which revealed no statistically significant differences between
78

the groups on the PELI Alphabet knowledge, F (1,91) = 0.84, p > .05 subtest; DIBELS letter
naming fluency, F (1,91) = 0.05, p > .05; and lower case letter name F (1,91) = 1.35, p > .05.
Despite a lack of statistical significance, the experimental group means were somewhat higher
than the control group in all aforementioned measures. Given the fact that the experimental and
control groups were both provided instruction on the letter-of-the-week, the similarity letter
recognition performance of students in the two conditions was not unexpected (See Table 14 for
spring assessment group means, adjusted means, and standard deviations).
Phonological awareness. Phonological awareness was assessed through multiple
measures, which included: DIBELS first sound fluency, DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency
and the PELI phonemic awareness section. The Pearson correlation analysis indicated highly
correlated variables with PELI phonemic awareness correlated with DIBELS first sound fluency
(.72) and DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency (.46). See Table 13 for Pearson correlations.
The ANCOVA analysis on spring scores covarying for winter performance revealed
statistically significant differences between the groups across all phonological awareness
dependent measures. All analyses of phonological awareness measures showed significant
differences between groups, which included PELI phonemic awareness, F (1,91) = 6.28, p < .05;
DIBELS first sound fluency, F (1,91) = 8.28, p < .01; and DIBELS phoneme segmentation, F
(1,91) = 8.32, p < .01, with medium effect sizes for the partial eta squared values obtained on
2

each assessment; ηp =.07, .08, and .08 respectively. When the mean scores of students in the
experimental and control groups were examined, the results suggested students in the
experimental group significantly surpassed the performance of students in the control group in
phonemic awareness by almost a one-half standard deviations (PELI phonemic awareness:
experimental adjusted M =15.58, control adjusted M = 13.29, group SD = 5.68; DIBELS first
79

sound fluency: experimental adjusted M=23.43, control adjusted M=16.61, group SD=13.51;
DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency: experimental adjusted M=15.14, control adjusted
M=8.43, group SD=14.54). The results also show that there were large intra-individual
differences in the performance of students, which was reflected in the large standard deviations
for the groups. This also made the group differences more striking because main effects for
condition were less likely to result in the face of large individual variation.
Vocabulary. The dependent measures for vocabulary and oral language were the PELI
vocabulary and oral language component and the curriculum-based measure vocabulary
assessment. The vocabulary measures were significantly correlated at the .001 level with r=.43.
See Table 13 for Pearson Correlations.
When ANCOVA analyses were performed on both vocabulary posttests assessments
covarying for pretest winter scores, there were statistically significant differences between
experimental and control groups. The PELI vocabulary and oral language variable analyses
revealed statistically significant results for the two groups with a small effect size, F (1,91) =
2

2.72, p < .05, ηp =.03. Likewise the curriculum-based vocabulary measure showed a statistically
significant result for the treatment conditions that was associated with a large effect size, F
2

(1,91) = 20.74, p < .01, ηp =.18. Group means and standard deviations were examined to
determine the direction of the differences, which revealed that the students in the experimental
group surpassed the performance of the students in the control group on both the PELI
vocabulary assessment (experimental adjusted M=22.51, control adjusted M=20.91, group
SD=5.56), as well as the curriculum-based vocabulary: experimental adjusted M=19.33, control
adjusted M=12.82, group SD=8.89).

80

Comprehension. The comprehension variable was measured on the PELI in the
comprehension section of the assessment. The comprehension variable was most highly
correlated with the total PELI score at r=.72 and the PELI phonological awareness measure at
r=.52. ANCOVA analyses performed on posttest scores that were adjusted for the pretest winter
scores demonstrated a slight difference between experimental and control groups that was
2

significant, and associated with a small effect size, F (1,91) = 4.27, p < .05, ηp = .04. Upon
inspection of adjusted posttest scores, the control group mean (M=14.56) was more elevated than
the experimental group (M=12.94) mean with a group standard deviation of 4.51.
Concepts about print. Concepts of print was measured via a single measure that examine
students’ ability to identify various components of books and text. Pearson correlation analysis
showed the concepts of print variable was correlated at .01 with all variables except the
curriculum-based vocabulary variable that was correlated at the .05 level (See Table 13 for
Pearson Correlations). The concepts of print variable was most highly correlated with lower
case letter sounds at .61. When the ANCOVA analysis was conducted, the results indicated
there was not a statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups (F
(1,91) = 1.34, p > .05).

81

Table 13
Pearson Correlations for Spring Dependent Variables
PT PP
PA PC PV DT FSF LF
PT
PP
PA
PC
PV
DT
FSF
LF
PSF

1

PSF TT

TR

TL

TW

SW

LN

LS

CP

CV

.81
**

.80
**

.72
**

.68
**

.79
**

.65
**

.63
**

.56
**

.73
**

.68
**

.54
**

.58
**

.42
**

.75
**

.74
**

.59
**

.35
**

1

.54
**

.52
**

.38
**

.69
**

.72
**

.44
**

.46
**

.63
**

.54
**

.43
**

.52
**

.29
**

.56
**

.66
**

.38
**

.24
*

1

.39
*

.31
**

.68
**

.46
**

.71
**

.41
**

.62
**

.64
**

.40
**

.52
**

.37
**

.89
**

.64
**

.54
**

.19

1

.43
**

.53
**

.45
**

.36
**

.42
**

.43
**

.40
**

.37
**

.29
**

.36
**

.39
**

.47
**

.39
**

.24
*

1

.44
**

.38
**

.28
**

.40
**

.49
**

.40
**

.43
**

.37
**

.23
*

.28
**

.42
**

.42
**

.43
**

1

.78
**

.77
**

.78
**

.70
**

.68
**

.47
**

.63
**

.48
**

.73
**

.76
**

.53
**

.41
**

1

.45
**

.38
**

.52
**

.48
**

.32
**

.45
**

.23
*

.52
**

.64
**

.36
**

.25
*

1

.38
**

.60
**

.63
**

.38
**

.53
**

.46
**

.77
**

.63
**

.47
**

.32
**

1

.54
**

.47
**

.38
**

.48
**

.40
**

.43
**

.50
**

.40
**

.37
**

82

Table 13 (con’t)
PT
TT

PP

PA

PC

PV

DT

FSF LF

PSF TT

CP

CV

.68
**

.84
**

.82
**

.55
**

.71
**

.65
**

.49
**

.32
**

.60
**

.68
**

.51
**

.73
**

.68
**

.48
**

.26
*

.44
**

.26
*

.48
**

.31
**

.31
**

.27
**

.42
**

.59
**

.67
**

.32
**

.26
*

.48
**

.45
**

.42
**

.18

.71
**

.61
**

.20

.57
**

.38
**

1

LS

CP

1

LN

LS

1

SW

LN

1

TW

SW

1

TL

TW

1

TR

TL

1

1

TR

.24
**

Note: PT = PELI total score, PP=PELI phonological awareness, PA=PELI alphabet knowledge, P C=PELI comprehension, P
V=PELI vocabulary, DT=DIBELS total score, FSF=DIBELS first sound fluency, LF=DIBELS letter naming fluency, PSF=DIBELS
phoneme segmentation fluency, TT=TROLL total score, TR=TROLL reading, TL=TROLL language, TW=TROLL writing, SW=sight
words, LN=Lower case letter names, LS=Lower case letter sounds, CP=Concepts about print, CV=curriculum vocabulary measure.
83

Table 14
Spring ANCOVA Results
Measure
PELI
Alphabet Knowledge
Phonemic Awareness
Comprehension
Vocabulary and Oral
Language
Concepts of Print
Vocabulary Assessment
DIBELS
FSF
LNF
PSF
Lower Case Letter
Names
Letter Sounds

2

Df

F

Partial-Eta

1, 91
1, 91
1, 91
1, 91

.84
6.28
4.27
2.72

.00
.07
.04
.03

.84
.01**
.04**
.10*

1, 91
1, 91

1.42
20.74

.02
.18

.23
.00**

1, 91
1, 91
1, 91
1, 91

8.28
.05
8.32
1.35

.08
.00
.08
.01

.01**
.82
.01**
.25

1, 91

53.48

.37

.00**

84

p-value

Table 15
Spring Group Means, Adjusted Means, and Standard Deviations
Experimental Control
Group
Experimental
Spring
Spring
Spring
Adjusted
Mean
Dependent
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M
Variable

Control
Adjusted
Mean

Group
Adjusted
Mean

M

M

72.26 (15.3)

68.48
(19.45)

70.37
(17.5)

71.32

69.42

70.37

Alphabet
Knowledge

21.04 (7.4)

19.87
(7.61)

20.46
(7.5)

20.42

20.62

20.52

Phonemic
Awareness

15.52 (4.83)

13.35
(6.29)

14.43
(5.68)

15.58

13.29

14.44

Comprehension

13.48 (4.23)

14.02
(4.81)

13.75
(4.51)

12.94

14.56

13.75

Vocabulary and
Oral Language

22.24 (5.13)

21.24
(6.13)

21.74
(5.56)

22.57

20.91

21.74

58.24 (31.35)

46.38
(31.43)

52.18
(31.43)

59.25

45.41

52.33

FSF 22.24 (13.91)

17.75
(12.88)

19.95
(13.51)

23.43

16.61

20.02

LNF 21.63 (13.51)

19.46
(12.98)

20.52
(13.22)

20.70

20.35

20.53

PSF 14.37 (15.37)

9.17
(13.37)

11.71
(14.54)

15.14

8.43

11.78

9.98 (3.69)

11.10
(5.71)

10.55
(4.84)

10.08

11.00

10.54

76.13 (11.78)

72.27
(10.25)

74.18
(11.15)

69.97

78.30

74.14

Total PELI

DIBELS
TOTAL

Concepts about
Print
TROLL Total

Research question two. The second research question was: “Does a research-based,
class-wide (tier one) intervention have a differential effect on the overall literacy development of
intervention students compared to same-age peers who received a standard preschool literacy
curriculum implemented by comparison preschool teachers?”
85

There were multiple variables that measured the overall impact of student learning in
both the experimental and control groups that included: the total PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010), the TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003) assessment (language, reading, writing, and
total score) as well as sight word recognition. Each of the aforementioned dependent variables
were measured using Pearson Correlation and ANCOVA and Multivariate Analysis of
Covariance (MANCOVA). For this analysis, the focus was on how non-targeted or integrated
literacy components might be impacted by the two instructional conditions. The subsequent
sections discuss the implications of the analysis on each dependent variable.
Total PELI score. One measure of early literacy performance was the total PELI score
which was a composite score of all emergent literacy measures including: PELI alphabet
knowledge, PELI comprehension, PELI phonological awareness, and PELI vocabulary and oral
language. Due to the highly correlated nature of the PELI dependent measures, MANCOVA
analysis was conducted. The MANCOVA results showed no significant effect for treatment
conditions, F (5,88) = 0.52, p > .05. Despite the non-significant difference between the groups,
the experimental group adjusted mean (adjusted M=71.32) showed a slightly higher but nonsignificant aggregated total PELI score than the control adjusted group (adjusted M=69.42).
(See Table 16 for MANCOVA results).
TROLL assessment. The TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003) assessment was a teacher
rating scale on language, reading, writing, and total score which was a cumulative score of the
first three scores. The TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003) total score was highly correlated with the
subsections of reading (.89), writing (.82), and language (.84). Due to the high correlation with
variables, a MANCOVA was conducted on the TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003) subtests in a
multivariate analysis and covarying for pretest performance. The MANCOVA revealed an

86

overall statistically significant main effect , which suggested that there were differences between
2

the two instructional conditions, F (4, 89) = 17.38, p < .05 ηp = .45. When univariate scores
were analyzed, the results indicated a significant difference between groups on teachers’ ratings
2

of students’ language (F (1,91) = 27.82, p < .05, ηp =.24) and reading development (F (1,91) =
2

40.05, p < .05, ηp =.31), with the control group of students being assigned higher teacher ratings
than the experimental students in language and reading. There were no statistically significant
differences on teachers’ ratings of students’ writing development. See Table 13 for MANCOVA
results.
Sight word assessment. The Pearson correlation analysis showed variability in
correlations to other dependent variables and was correlated at the .05 or .01 level with all
variables except the curriculum-based vocabulary assessment. The sight word variable was most
highly correlated with the TROLL total score at .56 (See Table 13 for Pearson Correlations).
ANCOVA analysis was conducted on the spring sight word assessment with winter scores as the
covariate to examine group differences. There was not a significant difference between groups
(F (1,91) = 0.1, p > .05). The finding of non-significance was not unexpected, given that this
was a transfer measure that evaluated students’ performance on a non-instructed area of the
literacy curriculum, and potentially above the students’ developmental levels.

87

Table 16
Spring MANCOVA Results
Measure

Df

PELI Total Score
5,88
Alphabet Knowledge
1, 91
Phonemic Awareness
1, 91
Comprehension
1, 91
Vocabulary and Oral
1, 91
Language
TROLL
4, 89
Reading
1, 91
Language
1, 91
Writing
1,91
DIBELS
3,87
FSF
1, 91
LNF
1, 91
PSF
1, 91
Note: * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

2

F

Partial-Eta

p-value

5.88
.84
6.28
4.27
2.72

.007
.00
.07
.04
.03

.112
.84
.01**
.04**
.10*

17.38
40.05
27.82
.006
5.27
8.28
.05
8.32

.45
.31
.24
.00
.15
.08
.00
.08

.00**
.00**
.00**
.94
.00**
.01**
.82
.01**

Research question three. The third research question was as follows: “Does
implementation of a tier one emergent literacy intervention reduce the percentage of kids who
are considered well below (tier three) and below (tier two) benchmark on the Preschool Early
Literacy Indicator assessment?”
To answer this question, the focus shifted to the percent of students who met the
benchmarks, who were below the benchmark, or who were well below the benchmark. Dynamic
Measurement Group, publisher of the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) assessment,
released the benchmark goals and cut points for the PELI measure over the course of the
previous year (Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). The benchmark goals and cut points
were determined for preschool students using validation studies that correlated the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) using other external assessments, including the DIBELS
(Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) composite scores and the CELF (Semel et al., 1995;
88

Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). However, the recent release meant that the
benchmarks were preliminary.
The preliminary benchmark goals were established to determine the student who
achieved benchmark and had favorable odds, 80%-90%, likelihood of achieving end of year
prekindergarten literacy standards, and hence were performing on track concerning language and
literacy outcomes (Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). On the other hand, the preliminary
cut scores also identified students who were below and well below the established benchmarks
and who would most likely need intensive remediation in language and literacy in order to meet
grade-level expectations at the end of the year (Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). The
students achieving below the benchmark goal were predicted to have a 40-60% likelihood of
achieving end-of the year literacy outcomes, where as students who were well below the
benchmark only had a 10%-20% likelihood of achieving end of the year language and literacy
outcomes (Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). The remainder of this section will examine
the experimental and control groups’ who were at-risk (well below benchmark) based on the
number of students who scored at or below the cut point scores. For specific benchmark and cut
scores on the PELI assessment see Table 17.

89

Table 17
Preliminary PELI Benchmark Goals and Cut Points
Beginning of
Middle of
Year/Fall
Year/Winter
Benchmark
Benchmark
(Cut Point)
(Cut Point)
Composite Score
157
191
(123)
(157)
Alphabet
7
20
Knowledge
(3)
(10)
Comprehension
14
15
(11)
(12)
Phonological
4
9
Awareness
(1)
(6)
Vocabulary
21
23
(17)
(19)

End of Year/Spring
Benchmark
(Cut Point)
221
(185)
24
(16)
16
(13)
13
(9)
23
(19)

The dependent measures were all coded as for both benchmark and cut score criterion. If
the student was meeting or exceeding benchmark he/she received a 1, if the student did not meet
the benchmark, a score of 0 was assigned. Similarly, if a student exceeded or met the cut point, a
score of “1” was allocated, whereas if the student did not meet the cut point, a score of “0” was
assigned, and the student was then deemed well below benchmark. All PELI dependent
measures of alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, vocabulary and oral language, and
comprehension were coded according to the criteria set forth above.
At the time of the winter data collection, there were significant differences between the
groups in the number of students who were well below benchmark (i.e., the lowest 10-20% of
students based on national benchmarks) in the areas of alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, and
comprehension. In the area of alphabet knowledge, there were 30% of the students (n=14.1) who
were deemed at-risk because they scored well below benchmark in the experimental group; and
44% (n=20.68) who were judged to be well below benchmark in the control group. Further

90

breaking down performance based on the other PELI subtests, vocabulary and oral language
measures showed that 28% of the students in the experimental group (n=13.16) were considered
to be well below benchmark; whereas half that number or 16% of the control group (n=7.52)
were considered to be at-risk. Finally, in the area of comprehension, the experimental group
included 15% of the students who were considered at-risk (n=7.05) compared to 35% of the
control group (n=16.45). On the other hand, the groups were fairly equal on the phonological
awareness measure of the PELI with 21% (n=9.87) of the experimental group well below
benchmark and 22% (n=10.34) of the control group well below benchmark.
Due to group differences across the measures, ANCOVA analysis was conducted on
spring scores using the winter scores as the covariate. ANCOVA analysis indicated similarity
across conditions in all areas of the PELI, with no significant differences between the groups.
Both groups showed a reduction in the proportion of students who were below benchmarks. Only
17% of the experimental group was considered to be well below benchmark in alphabet
knowledge (n=7.99) on the spring posttest compared to the control group, which had 26% of the
students (n=12.22) who were considered to be well below benchmark. This represented
reductions of 13% and 14%, respectively, in the number of students who performed below
benchmarks across the experimental and control groups. The result was similar in the vocabulary
and oral language measure as well. The experimental group had fewer students who were judged
to be well below benchmark based on the cut points than the control group (experimental=15%,
n=7.05; control=29%, n=13.63), just the opposite of winter measures with the experimental
group being more at-risk than the control group. Finally, the phonological awareness measure
also indicated the proportion of students from the experimental group who were considered well
below benchmark fell to 3% (n=1.41) from 21% in the winter; whereas the proportion of

91

students in the control group fell to 8% (n=3.76) from the winter levels of 22%. Finally, the
control group was judged to be slightly less at-risk on the comprehension measure than the
experimental group (experimental=35%, n=16.45; control=33%, n=15.51). However, the
relatively high number of students in both groups who performed poorly on the comprehension
component of the PELI revealed an area of concern for the preschool students that remained
unresolved during the course of the study. (See Table 18 for percentages of students who were
well-below benchmark, below benchmark, and at benchmark based on the PELI).
The following figure shows the proportion of students in the experimental and control
groups who performed at or below the cut-offs for ‘at-riskness’ based on the PELI norms for the
various subtests on the pretest (winter) and posttest (spring) assessments.

92

Figure 2
Proportion of Well Below Benchmark Students Based on the PELI
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure and all other figures, the reader is
referred to the electronic versoin of this dissertation)

Additionally, there were children who did not achieve benchmarks, but who were not
well below benchmark (tier 3), as was reported in the preceding paragraphs. These students
were deemed slightly below benchmark (tier 2) and were only 40-60% likely to achieve end of
the year benchmarks. In the area of alphabet knowledge the experimental group had a lesser
percentage (22%, n=7.99) of students who were below benchmark compared to the control group
(27%, n=12.69). The experimental and control group were similar on both the vocabulary and
comprehension measure with students who were below benchmark, but not well below
benchmark with 28% (n=13.16) of the students in the category on comprehension and 2%
(n=0.94) of the students on vocabulary. The control group had fewer students who did not meet
93

benchmark but were not well below benchmark in the area of phonological awareness
(experimental=13%, n=6.11; control=11%, n=5.17).
Table 18
Winter and Spring Percentages of Students well below benchmark, below benchmark, and at
benchmark as measured on the PELI
Winter
Winter
Spring
Spring
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Percentages
Percentages Percentages Percentages
Alphabet
Well
30%
44%
17%
26%
Knowledge
Below
Benchmark
Below
19%
12%
22%
27%
Benchmark
At
51%
44%
61%
47%
Benchmark
Phonological Well
21%
22%
3%
8%
Awareness
Below
Benchmark
Below
11%
9%
13%
11%
Benchmark
At
68%
69%
84%
81%
Benchmark
Vocabulary
Well
28%
16%
15%
29%
Below
Benchmark
Below
21%
21%
2%
2%
Benchmark
At
51%
63%
83%
69%
Benchmark
Comprehensi Well
15%
35%
35%
33%
on
Below
Benchmark
Below
19%
22%
28%
28%
Benchmark
At
66%
43%
37%
39%
Benchmark

94

Research questions four. Research question four was: “Does implementation of a tier
one intervention increase the percentage of students who are at benchmark on the Preschool
Early Literacy Indicator assessment?”
In addition to the proportion of students who were at-risk based on the PELI,
consideration was given to the proportion of students who performed at the high criterion levels
established for the literacy benchmarks. For specific information on how the benchmark goals
were determined see the opening paragraph under research question three as the same methods
were employed in determining benchmark goals (Kaminski, Abbot, Bravo-Aguayo, 2012). The
dependent measures were all coded as meeting or exceeding benchmark goals on a 0, 1 scale. If
the student met the benchmark goal he/she received a “1” or if the student did not met the
benchmark goal a “0” was allocated. The PELI dependent measures of alphabet knowledge,
phonological awareness, vocabulary and oral language, and comprehension were all coded if the
student was at-risk or at benchmark.
On the winter pretest, there were no significant differences between students who were at
benchmark in the areas of alphabet knowledge, vocabulary and oral language, comprehension,
and phonological awareness. In the area of alphabet knowledge the experimental group had 51%
(n=23.97) of the students who achieved benchmark and the control group had 44% (n=20.68) at
benchmark. The control group had 63% (n=29.61) of the students who performed at or above
benchmark compared to the experimental group, which had 51% (23.97) who were at or above
benchmark in the area of vocabulary and oral language. Students reaching benchmark in the
area of comprehension favored the experimental group with 66% (n=31.02) attaining benchmark
compared to the control group with 43% (n=20.21) at benchmark. The groups were almost equal
on the phonemic awareness measure (experimental=68%, n=31.96; control=69%, n=32.43).

95

Again the ANCOVA analysis was performed on spring scores, covarying for the pretest
performance. ANCOVA analysis indicated similarity across conditions in all areas of the PELI.
Despite the non-significance, it is interesting to note that 61% (n=28.67) of the experimental
group achieved benchmarks in alphabet knowledge compared to the control group, which had
47% (n=22.09) of the students at benchmark. The result was similar in the vocabulary and oral
language measure as well. The proportion of students in the experimental group meeting
benchmark standards surpassed the control group (experimental=83%, n=39.01; control=69%,
n=32.43). The phonological awareness measure indicated that 84% (n=39.48) of the
experimental group achieved benchmark compared to 81% (n=38.07) of the control group. The
comprehension measure favored the control group with 39% (n=18.33) of the students meeting
benchmark and the experimental group with 37% (n=17.39) of the students meeting benchmark.
These results are summarized in Figure 3. (See Table 18 for specific benchmark percentages).

96

Figure 3
Proportion of Students Reaching Benchmarks on the PELI

Research question five. Research question five was: “What impact does the
implementation of a tier one intervention have on students’ DIBELS scores and the potential to
achieve DIBELS fall (beginning of the year) kindergarten benchmarks?”
The DIBELS assessment subtest results were discussed above and will not be outlined
below. Relative to the PELI, the DIBELS was a more established criterion, using kindergarten
literacy benchmarks that are associated with reading achievement in the elementary grades. In
order to assess the impact of the emergent literacy intervention on DIBELS benchmarks, two
additional scores were created. First, all of the DIBELS scores were combined for a total
DIBELS score, which included first sound fluency, letter naming fluency, and phoneme
segmentation fluency. The second variable that was created was a kindergarten DIBELS

97

composite score, which included only first sound fluency and letter naming fluency, not
phoneme segmentation fluency. This was created based on how the Dynamic Measurement
Group (2010) constructed the fall kindergarten DIBELS composite score.
The first analysis focused on the total DIBELS winter score, which was first sound
fluency, letter naming fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency, through independent t-tests,
which demonstrated there was not a significant difference between the experimental and control
groups (t (93) = -.692, p > .05). Despite comparability of groups the control group mean
(M=36.23) surpassed that of the experimental group (M=32.02). The total DIBELS score was
highly correlated with the first sound fluency, letter naming fluency, and phoneme segmentation
fluency measures at .78, .77, and .77, respectively (See Table 13 for Pearson Correlations).
Due to the highly correlated nature of the DIBELS variables, a MANCOVA was
conducted on the spring total DIBELS score, which includes: first sound fluency, letter naming
fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency while covarying for winter scores. The results
2

indicated a significant main effect for groups, F (3,87) = 5.27, p < .05, ηp = .15. Examination of
the univariate analyses was conducted which showed first sound fluency, F (1,89) = 6.82, p <
2

2

.05, ηp = .07) and phoneme segmentation fluency, F (1,89) =9.22, p < .05, ηp = .09, contributed
to the significant multivariate result. The experimental group outperformed the control group in
both first sound fluency and phoneme segmentation fluency. Additionally, the experimental
group adjusted mean on phoneme segmentation fluency was 15.26 whereas the control group
adjusted mean was 8.3. Furthermore, when comparing the total DIBELS score the experimental
group adjusted mean (M=59.25) surpassed the control group adjusted mean (M=45.41). See
Table 15 for group means, adjusted means, and standards deviations.

98

Additional DIBELS analysis was conducted on the kindergarten DIBELS composite
score, which was first sound fluency and letter naming fluency measure only. The DIBELS
publisher recommends that school districts employ a composite score based on the two variables
in making judgments about a student’s level of riskness. Consequently, the analyses in the
subsequent section focuses on the proportion of students who met the fall kindergarten DIBELS
composite score benchmark and the proportion of students who were considered at-risk based on
a composite score that represented whether they were above or below the criterion levels for
kindergarteners in the fall.
The kindergarten DIBELS composite score was coded exactly like the PELI for both
benchmark and cut scores, which was described above. The benchmark goal for the beginning
of the year composite score was 26 and the cut point for students being at-risk was 13 (Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2010). Finally, since the DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency
assessment is not given at kindergarten entry, the scores at spring collection were compared to
the middle of kindergarten benchmark and cut scores. These scores were coded like the PELI
and is detailed in the previous section. The mid-kindergarten benchmark goal was 20 and the cut
point for at-risk was 10.
At the winter assessment an ANOVA was conducted on the winter kindergarten DIBELS
composite score, which encompasses first sound fluency and letter naming fluency measures,
with no covariate. The ANOVA was conducted on the amount of students meeting or exceeding
benchmark (F (1,91) =.014, p > .05) and for those who were well below the benchmark F (1,91)
= .449, p > .05), both analysis indicated there was not a significant difference between groups.
The experimental group had fewer students at benchmark (47%, n=22.09) than the control group
(48%, n=22.56). However, the control group had more students well below benchmark at 34%

99

(n=15.98) than the experimental group at 28% (n=13.16). The students who were below
benchmark were those who did not achieve benchmark but did not fall below the cut point for
well below benchmark were 25% (n=11.75) for the experimental group and 18% (n=8.46) for the
control group.
An ANCOVA was performed on the fall kindergarten DIBELS composite spring score,
entering the winter score as the covariate, which revealed no significant main effect for
treatment, F (1,91) =2.67, p > .05. However, when examining the mean scores based on the
proportion of students meeting grade-level benchmarks in kindergarten, the experimental group
had 83% (n=39.01) of the students who met kindergarten fall benchmarks whereas the control
group had 69% (n=32.43). This was a fairly sizable difference even though it was not statistically
significant. This finding is especially compelling, given the fact that significantly more control
students outperformed the experimental students on the winter pretest assessment. Yet by the
administration of the spring post-test assessment, the experimental students had made significant
gains over time, as indicated by the finding that 83% had met the fall Kindergarten benchmarks.
The 83% of students achieving benchmark exceeds the recommended criteria that 80% of the
students should achieve benchmark based on effective tier 1 instruction (Horner, 2012).
In addition, there was not a significant difference between the percentage of students who
fell well below the cut-point that indicated that they were at-risk (F (1,91) = 0.8, p > .05).
However, the experimental group had 11% (n=5.17) of the students who were judged to be atrisk whereas the control group had 17% (n=7.99) of the students who were judged to be at the
same level of riskness.
Finally, consideration was given to phoneme segmentation fluency on the DIBELS. This
was considered to be a fairly difficult subtest that is not administered to kindergarteners until the

100

winter of the kindergarten year. However, this delay also presented a dilemma in the study.
Since the phoneme segmentation fluency assessment has benchmarks that only apply to students
the middle of kindergarten, the application of phonological awareness standards to students in
the preschool experimental and control conditions set a stringent and tough standard of academic
achievement.
At the winter assessment an ANOVA was conducted on the winter phoneme
segmentation fluency measure, compared to kindergarten middle of the year phoneme
segmentation fluency benchmarks. The ANOVA was conducted on the amount of students
meeting or exceeding benchmark (F (1,91) =.222 p > .05) and for those who were well below the
benchmark F (1,91) = .699, p > .05). At the winter assessment the experimental group had fewer
students who met the benchmark (6%, n=2.82) than the control group (10%, n=4.7). The control
group had slightly more students well below benchmark at 76% (n=35.72) than the experimental
group at 72% (n=33.84). Furthermore, the students who were below benchmark but did not fall
below the cut point for well-below benchmark were 22% (n=10.34) for the experimental group
and 14% (n=6.58) for the control group. See Figure 4 for the percentage of students who were
well below benchmark.

101

Figure 4
Proportion of students who were well below benchmark on the DIBELS

An ANCOVA was conducted on spring scores to analyze and compare the students who
were at benchmark on the phoneme segmentation fluency subtest, with winter scores as the
covariate. The ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect for group, F (1,91) =7.32, p < .05,
2

ηp =.07. Examination of the means revealed that 37% (n=17.39) of the experimental group
achieved mid-year kindergarten benchmarks, whereas 21% (n=9.87) of the control group reached
mid-year kindergarten benchmarks.
However, when evaluating the proportion of at-risk students on the DIBELS phoneme
segmentation fluency, the ANCOVA revealed no significant differences between groups (F
(1,91) =3.3, p > .05). However, this result was not entirely meaningful given the fact that the
experimental group had 48% of the students (n = 22.56) who were judged to be at-risk on that
102

basis, whereas the control group had 77% of the students (n = 31.49) at-risk as measured by the
mid-year kindergarten benchmark. See Figure 6 for percentages of students who were at
benchmark for each DIBELS assessment.
Figure 5
Percentage of students who were at benchmark on the DIBELS

103

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of an emergent
literacy intervention, KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The Children’s Learning
Institute, 2010), on preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills. The emergent literacy skills assessed
were alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts
about print. The present chapter discusses the results within the framework of each research
question. Additionally, implications for practice, limitations of the current study, and directions
for future research will be discussed.
Research Question One
The first research question was: “Does implementation of a research-based literacy
intervention have an effect on preschool students’ (4-5-year-olds) emergent literacy skills (a)
alphabetic knowledge (b) phonological awareness (c) vocabulary (d) comprehension (e) concepts
about print?”
Alphabet knowledge. The first question focused on alphabet knowledge skills, as
measured using the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010), DIBELS (The Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2011) letter naming fluency, lower case letter names, and lower case letter
sounds. Analyses indicated that there were no significantly differences in the students’ ability to
name letters across all assessments: PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) alphabet
knowledge, DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) letter naming fluency, and
lower case letter names and sounds). This finding contradicted the finding of the Mannes
(2011) study that there was a statistically significant difference between experimental and control
groups. However, the Mannes (2011) study was a 2-day a week classroom with ages ranging
from three-years-old to four-years-old, whereas this study targeted a specific population of
104

children who were all four-years-old with a smaller percentage of five-year-olds, all of which
met four to five days a week. The difference between the results of the two studies could be for
a multitude of reasons. First, both the experimental and control group received instruction in
alphabet knowledge and letter recognition, which from the results indicates that zoo phonics in
combination with teacher created material or zoo phonics in combination with K-PALS (Mathes
et al., 2001) are equally effective in teaching letter names. This finding is consistent with
previous research in that specific, direct instruction of letter names results in children acquiring
letter name knowledge and skills (Bunn et al., 2005; Mannes, 2011; Phillips & Piasta, 2013;
Share, 2004).
Despite the non-significance effect for letter names, there was a significant difference
between experimental and control groups on lower case letter sounds, with the experimental
group almost a full standard deviation above the control group. This finding was not surprising
given the increased attention to letter sounds in isolation and in VC, CV, and CVC words in the
K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) component of the intervention. This finding is encouraging based
on Spencer, Spencer, Goldstein, & Schnieder (2013) in which they stated, “Learning letter names
is a strong predictor of learning to read because it facilitates learning letter sounds (Ehri &
Wilce, 1979), but naming letters without phonological awareness and letter-sound association
has little effect on reading development,” (p. 47). The intentionality of the K-PALS (Mathes et
al., 2001) curriculum to combine letter naming, letter sounds, and phonological awareness shows
promise as an intervention that could influence long-term reading development for students in
preschool settings.
Phonological awareness. Phonological awareness was measured by multiple
assessments, which included the PELI phonological awareness (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo,

105

2010), DIBELS first sound fluency (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011), and DIBELS
phoneme segmentation fluency (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011). There were
significant differences between groups on all of the phonological awareness assessments with the
experimental group surpassing the control group means on the multiple measures of
phonological awareness. Most likely, this result is attributable to the KPALS (Mathes et al.,
2001) intervention, which targets phonological awareness and phonics. This finding is consistent
with the results of previous research on the positive impact K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) has on
phonological awareness skills (Fuchs et al., 2001; Mannes, 2011; Mathes et al., 2001; McMaster
et al, 2008; Rafdal et al, 2011). This finding suggests that the use of KPALS (Mathes et al.,
2001) shows promise as an appropriate intervention for developing phonological awareness
skills among preschool students. The finding supports the importance of addressing both
alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness in an explicit manner to facilitate literacy
outcomes in preschool programs (Bailet et al., 2009; Justice et al., 2003; Phillips & Piasta, 2013;
Spencer et al., 2013).
Furthermore, the experimental group was underperforming compared to the control group
on all phonological awareness measures prior to the implementation of the intervention (i.e.,
PELI phonemic awareness (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010), DIBELS first sound fluency
(The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011), DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency (The
Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011)) at both the fall and winter assessment periods. In
contrast, the spring results revealed a reversal in the performance status of the groups. The
experimental students had caught up and surpassed the performance of the control students in
their phonological awareness performance. This finding is significant in that K-PALS (Mathes
et al., 2001) seems to represent a superior intervention for phonological awareness skills, and it

106

has the utility to be used as part of a tier 1 intervention program with good prospects for
improving the phonological awareness outcomes of students who are below benchmark in
preschool literacy environments. This finding enhances the current corpus of literature by
extending KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) into a new environment, preschool, with minor
implementation modifications. To understand the full potential impact additional research must
be conducted. However, the initial use of KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) in a preschool
environment indicated a potentially promising intervention.
Vocabulary. Vocabulary was measured from the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo,
2011) and the curriculum-based measure. The PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)
assessment provided a broad assessment of vocabulary as well as a generalization measure where
as the curriculum based measure assessed specific vocabulary targets from the DTPK (The
Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) intervention. Results from the curriculum-based measure
showed a statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups, however,
the result did not generalize to the broader vocabulary measure in the PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010). This finding is consistent with previous research in that vocabulary instruction
yields small effects on targeted vocabulary words, but tends to not generalize to other vocabulary
measures which measure broader vocabulary skills (Dickinson & Darrow, 2013; Pentimonti,
Justice, & Piasta, 2013; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011; Zucker et al., in press). The nonsignificance of results on the generalized PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) vocabulary
measure indicates that targeting acquisition of vocabulary is beyond the scope of the
interventions administered in this study.
These results are contrary to the initial study of DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute,
2010) conducted by Zucker et al (in press), in which the study showed a significant impact on

107

children’s receptive vocabulary (d=.81). The initial study and this study have several
differences, which may explain the variation of results. Many differences include: the number of
classrooms in the study, the duration of the intervention, as well as the frequency of coaching.
The primary difference between the Zucker et al., (in press) study and the current study is that
the Zucker et al., (2010) measure receptive vocabulary where as this study measured expressive
vocabulary. Receptive and expressive vocabulary are two different sets of skills and may have
been a component as to why the results were different.
Comprehension. Student comprehension was measured by the PELI (Kaminski &
Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) assessment, and was targeted in the DTPK (The Children’s Learning
Institute, 2010) intervention. The findings indicated there was a slight difference between
groups with the control group surpassing the experimental group. Teaching comprehension to
students is an abstract task that involves many integrated strategies, which presents various
challenges to teachers (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, 2001),
essentially making teaching comprehension more challenging for most teachers. The
comprehension instruction relied on teacher knowledge and ability, but it was explicitly included
as part of the intervention program. At the same time, the control condition also featured readalouds using picture books in which the teachers asked before reading, during reading, and after
reading questions to promote comprehension.
Based on these findings, it might seem that the development of comprehension requires
more explicit instruct in the preschool program to produce desired effects. It is also possible that
another comprehension assessment might be more sensitive to comprehension differences among
the groups. The PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) uses many scaffolding questions to
evaluate students’ understanding of literal comprehension elements in the story (i.e., who, when,

108

what, etc.). This type of supported and contextualized comprehension assessment might have
obscured differences in the inferential comprehension processes that were developed as part of
the DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute) program. Another possibility is that the DTPK
(The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) in the experimental classrooms and the guided readalouds in the control classrooms were more similar in the fabric and substance of the
comprehension instruction than dissimilar. This was evidenced by the control group teachers
asking similar pre-reading, during reading, and after reading questions as the experimental
group.
Finally, the students in the experimental group were lower at all assessment measures,
which could indicate that the students in the experimental group needed more than tier one
instruction in comprehension to make up the differences and surpass the control group
performance. At this point, however, the primary conclusion that can be reached pertains to the
difficulty of impacting comprehension, and the fact that this subtest produced the highest number
of students in both groups who performed at the at-risk levels. Currently, the consensus
surrounding teaching comprehension skills to young children is that children can construct
meaning from text (Gregory & Cahill, 2010). However, there is little research available about
how to teach comprehension skills to young children, specifically how to teach children to think
critically and acquire new knowledge (Gregory & Cahill, 2010). The importance of early
comprehension skills and the need for more research was supported by the Institute of Education
Sciences in that they awarded a large federal grant to research and better understand early
comprehension development as well as how to measure comprehension in preschool (Longigan
& Shannahan, 2013).

109

Concepts about print. The concepts about print assessment was measured through the
Michigan Literacy Progress Profile, which assessed 22 different concepts about print (i.e. capital
letter, period, quotation marks, etc). There was not a significant difference between the
experimental and control groups. It is possible that the similarity in instructional methodologies
used in shared reading and read aloud in the two conditions might account for the lack of
significant differences between groups.
Research Question Two
The second research question was as follows: “Does a research-based, class-wide (tier
one) intervention have a differential effect on the overall literacy development of intervention
students compared to same-age peers who received a standard preschool literacy curriculum
implemented by comparison preschool teachers?”
Overall, the results suggest that there were few significant differences between
experimental and control students on their overall literacy development, based on transfer
measures and composite scores. These results typified the groups’ performance on the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010), TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003), and sight words. Each of
these measures will be discussed in turn.
PELI. (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010). First, the overall impact of the intervention
was not significantly different between groups as measured by the total PELI (Kaminski &
Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) score. Initially, one would expect the experimental group to surpass the
control group when evaluating overall literacy components. However, upon further reflection,
there were components of emergent literacy instruction embedded in the mandated Zoo Phonics
and read aloud that might be comparable in both conditions. Further research must be two-fold.
The first line of research should try to tightly control teaching strategies to determine the

110

differential impact of those strategies on student level skills. Second, additional research must be
conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)
instrument as a screening measure with preschool students. Since the PELI (Kaminski & BravoAguayo, 2010) was in its first year of field-testing, the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)
may need additional minor adjustments to be more sensitive to child level skill differences.
TROLL. (Dickinson et al., 2003). The TROLL (Dickinson et al., 2003) measure was a
teacher rating scale, which evaluated several components of emergent literacy. On this measure
the control group surpassed the experimental group in language and reading on the posttest.
Previous research indicated this was a reliable and valid assessment (Dickinson et al., 2003) and
was predictive of students’ literacy achievement. However, the consistency of rating literacy
skills across teachers would need to be further investigated to draw any causal conclusions. The
teachers rated their own students without and controls on the ratings to determine the teachers’
accuracy of rating. With the small sample size of four teachers the ratings could have been
highly influenced by teacher bias and potential inconsistency of rating.
Sight words. The sight word measure was administered as a transfer variable to
determine if there was a significant difference between groups on a more sophisticated skill,
sight word recognition. There was not a significant difference between experimental and control
groups on the sight word measure. This was not entirely unexpected given that neither group of
teachers instructed the preschool students in sight words. Furthermore, because the sample
consisted of preschoolers, the developmental potential for sight word acquisition is different than
it is for students in elementary school, who would be expected to master sight word recognition
through a process of explicit instruction. In summary, no conclusion can be reached regarding

111

the potential of KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) or DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010)
to impact sight word acquisition in preschool students.
Research Question Three
The third research question was stated as: “Does implementation of a tier one emergent
literacy intervention reduce the percentage of kids who are considered well below (tier three) and
below (tier two) benchmark on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicator assessment (Kaminski &
Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)?”
The results indicated there were no significant differences between groups in the students
deemed to be well below PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) benchmarks. Despite this
non-significance, there were meaningful differences in the percentages of students who were
judged to be well-below benchmarks in both the experimental and control group. In the area of
alphabet knowledge the control group had 26% of the students who were at-risk because they fell
at or below the lowest 10-20% cut point; whereas the treatment group had 17% of the students
who were judged to be at-risk. Converting this proportion into actual numbers of students, this
means that 12 control students fell well-below benchmark levels in the control group, compared
to 8 students in the experimental group. Although these results are exploratory, this figure has
potential economic consequences for school districts. When considering the cost of providing
tier 3 services on a 1:1 basis for 8 students relative to 12 students, it is apparent that the
experimental intervention could yield economic benefits.
Furthermore, these statistics are consistent with phonological awareness, vocabulary and
oral language, and comprehension as well. In phonological awareness the experimental group
had one student at risk compared to three within the control group. On the vocabulary measure

112

the experimental group had seven students who were well below benchmark compared to the
control group’s 14 students who were well below benchmark.
On the other hand, the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) comprehension measure
yielded a slight advantage for the control group, which had 15 students who performed wellbelow benchmarks compared to the experimental group, which had 16 students, a difference of
one. This slight difference is not especially consequential, but the result compelled further
consideration of the comprehension instruction, which yielded several insights and possible
implications. First, the experimental and control group treatments may have been potentially
similar in the instructional strategies that teachers employed. At the same time, there remained a
fairly sizable percentage of students who were deemed well below comprehension benchmarks.
It could be argued that there needs to be additional and intensive literacy methods that are
employed in preschool to impact reading comprehension since neither treatment was as effective
as they needed to be. Furthermore, it is possible that the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo,
2010) may not be as accurate or sensitive as possible in measuring comprehension abilities. The
PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) questions focus on general Wh-questions (who, what,
when, where, etc.) asked before, during, and after reading. On the other hand, the DTPK (The
Children’s Learning Institute, 2010) comprehension questions feature inferential comprehension,
problem-solving and text-to-self connections, so the assessment questions asking in the PELI
(Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) did not match the comprehension instruction within DTPK
(The Children’s Learning Institute, 2010)
The experimental group, having fewer students at-risk is encouraging, but lends itself to
delving into potential reasons for why the groups were different but not significantly different.
First, the cut points and benchmarks are preliminary and need to be interpreted with caution.

113

That is, the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010) cut scores are being field-tested this year,
so they may not reflect the true picture of risk. Additionally, the K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2003)
intervention may need to be delivered in its entirety, instead of 12 weeks. If the entire
intervention was delivered, then maybe the results would be different. Finally, the potential for
increased procedural fidelity measures to ensure the most accurate implementation would have
increased the results to the point of significance.
Research Question Four
The fourth research was: “Does implementation of a tier one intervention increase the
percentage of students who are at benchmark on the Preschool Early Literacy Indicator
assessment (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010)?”
The Spring analysis indicated the treatment groups were not significantly different in the
number of students at benchmark as measured by the PELI (Kaminski & Bravo-Aguayo, 2010).
However, there were mean differences of students achieving benchmark with the experimental
group surpassing the control group in every area except comprehension. For example, in
alphabet knowledge (which consistently across all measures had been non-significant), the
experimental group had 61% (n=28.67) of the students meeting benchmarks compared to the
control group with 47% (n=22.09). The control group had seven more students who would
require a more intensive level of services (i.e., tier 2) to address the students’ alphabet
knowledge. This has an impact on cost, materials, and staff needed. Practically, for example,
with seven children needing additional remediation a district would be looking at employing a
teacher or paraprofessional who would need to teach two to three groups of students to provide
the additional support in the concept of alphabet knowledge. Tier 2 instruction could include an
additional 10 minutes of instruction per group for up to eight weeks.

114

To help put this in perspective a typical paraprofessional makes $10-12 an hour (The
wage information was gathered from a wage and salary study conducted at a local level during
the 2012 year), over four days a week, 10 minutes each day, for eight weeks would equate to
$3,200 to $3,840 of additional cost. Breaking down the cost on a per pupil basis, this amounts to
$457 to $549 per child estimate to remediate learning challenges in this setting. The
employment of a teacher to provide this remediation reflects the real cost to a school district to
provide this remediation, with the average teacher making $30-$35 an hour, which is $1,371$1,600 per child increase of cost to remediate in tier 2 instruction. The increased cost of
remediation has implications. However, we also know that the gap between the lowest learner
and the highest learner is much smaller in preschool than it would be in the later elementary
grades (Greenwood et al., 2011), therefore it is easier and more cost effective to remediate in the
preschool program than in later years. The results of this study reveal a unique opportunity for
explicit, targeted instruction to close the achievement gap prior to students entering kindergarten.
Furthermore, the more students who enter kindergarten possessing grade-level literacy skills, the
more likely those students are to achieve later literacy benchmarks, hence meeting literacy
expectations with tier 1 instruction (National Institute of Literacy, 2008; Phillips & Piasta, 2013;
Spencer et al., 2013).
Research Question Five
The fifth research question was: “What impact does the implementation of a tier one
intervention have on students’ DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) scores and
the potential to achieve DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) fall (beginning of
the year) kindergarten benchmarks?”

115

The findings of the DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) assessment
presented with statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups.
This finding solidifies other research that the KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) intervention produces
superior phonological awareness skills (Fuchs et al., 2001; Mannes, 2011; McMaster et al., 2008;
Rafdal et al., 2011). The combination of letter naming with letter sounds and phonological
awareness is the catalyst for later reading achievement (Spencer et al., 2013), which hopefully
puts the experimental group at an advantage upon kindergarten entry. Unfortunately, follow-up
data on the DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011) was outside of the scope of this
study, so this conjecture cannot be substantiated.
When evaluating the spring collection of the kindergarten DIBELS (The Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2011) composite score against fall benchmarks 83% of the students in the
experimental group were at benchmark surpassing the goal of 80% criterion of students
achieving benchmark (Horner, 2012). This finding is promising because it projects a figure that
shows that the district is likely to meet the building goals and standards for students entering
kindergarten at benchmark on the DIBELS (The Dynamic Measurement Group, 2011)
assessment. Again, follow-up data would substantiate or negate if the literacy skills were
maintained through kindergarten entry.
When evaluating the composite score and the phoneme segmentation score, there were
not significant differences between experimental and control groups. However, there was a
difference in percentage of students’ at-risk or achieving benchmarks. One example is on
phoneme segmentation fluency where the experimental group had 48% of the students at-risk
compared to the control group which had 77% of the students at-risk. Though these numbers are
high, it must be remembered that the skill that is being measured here is a middle-of- the-year

116

kindergarten benchmark score. One would not expect that preschoolers would achieve this
standard at the end of the preschool program for 4-year olds. However, as research indicates
acquisition of emergent literacy skills is interrelated (Phillips & Piasta, 2013; Spencer et al.,
2013), meaning that we should be teaching a variety of skills along the developmental continuum
to expose students to phonological awareness, which should encompass skills similar to those
measured in the phoneme segmentation fluency measure. Again, these findings suggest that the
KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) intervention may be an effective tier 1 strategy within preschool
learning environments.
Implications for Practice
This study evaluated a research-based emergent literacy intervention within multiple
preschool classrooms. The intervention contained several components that were unique and
enhanced the current corpus of literature. First, K-PALS (Mathes et al., 2001) is typically
delivered in a whole class format (Mathes et al., 2001), where this study used small groups (3-4
students) for instruction delivery. Second, many of the current intervention studies target a
single emergent literacy skill, for example, the intervention isolates alphabet knowledge or
vocabulary, but does not target the skills in combination (Bailet et al., 2009; Bunn et al., 2004;
Justice et al., 2003; Share, 2004; Tuckwiller et al., 2010). This study focused on alphabet
knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and concepts about print,
which encompassed many of the foundational emergent literacy skills (NELP, 2008). The
combination of the KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) intervention and the DTPK (The Children’s
Learning Institute, 2010) intervention created a holistic intervention, and this integration has not
been fully attempted in the current published, peer-reviewed literature (Bailet et al., 2009; Bunn
et al., 2004; Justice et al., 2003; Share, 2004; Tuckwiller et al., 2010). Third, the intervention

117

was delivered as a program within a preschool setting, whereas many of the prior intervention
studies focused on students in kindergarten classes (Fuch et al., 2001). The results indicate the
combination of KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001) and DTPK (The Children’s Learning Institute,
2010) is a potentially beneficial intervention within the preschool setting to develop emergent
literacy skills.
Additionally, this study adds to the literature in that direct, systematic, and targeted
instruction that is still developmentally appropriate can produce enhanced literacy outcomes
(Neuman, 2012). This is especially vital when given that 59% to 70% of the Head Start and
early childhood programs that serve children at-risk for school failure use the High Scope
Curriculum or Creative Curriculum in which there is “no causally interpretable evidence
regarding effective early childhood curricula,” (Longigan & Cunningham, 2013, p. 176). This
study shows promise in that there are other potential curriculum that may facilitate more
enhanced literacy outcomes. This does need to be interpreted with caution as the results were
not significant across all domains, nor did it encompass all components of preschool (i.e., math,
social-emotional development, etc). However, it challenges the status of High/Scope and
Creative Curriculum as child-directed with the teacher integrating all instruction into areas of
children’s’ interest and lead throughout the classroom. This study begins to elucidate of the
importance that small amounts of direct instruction can improve emergent literacy outcomes.
Finally, the body of research regarding preschool explicit literacy instruction, in a multitiered system of support model is limited (Bayat, et al., 2010; VanderHeyden et al., 2007), so this
study informs the current literature in explicit tier 1 interventions in preschool are beneficial.
This intervention again adds to the current corpus of literature in exploring the impact of tier 1
instruction on preschoolers’ emergent literacy skill acquisition. By no means does this answer

118

all of the questions surrounding the effectiveness and impact of MTSS in preschool settings,
instead it scratches the surface and spurs forth additional questions that need to be clarified and
answered.
Limitations of Research
There are several limitations of the current research. First, there was not random
assignment to the conditions. Random assignment of students to groups would have enhanced
the group comparability in the study, as well as provide additional control. Second, there was
not a standardized measure given to assess students’ pre and post assessment. This would have
added to the current research in several ways. First, it would have determined additional group
comparability. Including standardized measures would also have determined if the impact of the
intervention was generalized to a broader skill set. Finally, it would have determined if any of
the effects of the intervention were generalizable achievement and intelligence measures.
There were other limitations to the current research concerning the assessment measures
utilized. First, there was high variability, large effect sizes, in the DIBELS (The Dynamic
Measurement Group, 2011) phoneme segmentation scores. This variability could be related to
many factors, one of which, would be potential lack of reliability in scoring this measure.
Second, the curriculum based vocabulary measure required children to verbalize a definition of
the target vocabulary word, which relies heavily on a students’ ability to clearly articulate the
correct definition. In future research, the vocabulary measure could be enhanced by asking the
definition of the target vocabulary word along with asking a four yes-no questions to elicit the
students’ understanding of the target vocabulary word. Finally, the addition of having students
read CV and CVC words would have been a direct measure of the impact of KPALS (Mathes et

119

al., 2001), as reading of CV and CVC words is included in the KPALS (Mathes et al., 2001)
instructional sequence.
An additional limitation is implementation of the DTPK (The Children’s Learning
Institute, 2010) was between 80%-85%, leaving room for improvement. If this study were
conducted again the procedural fidelity would need to be monitored in a more strategic,
comprehensive manner to ensure closer alignment with prescribed intervention. An additional
limitation would be the use of an emergent preschool literacy screener, the PELI (Kaminski &
Bravo-Aguayo, 2010). Though it aligns with the key emergent literacy skills, it is in the initial
stages of reliability and validity.
There were also limitations in the small sample size of teachers in the entire sample.
Even though there were 94 subjects there were only four teachers in the study, of which two
were assigned to the control group and two to the experimental group. This small sample size of
teachers makes it difficult to determine if the effects were solely related to the instructional
methodologies or if the teacher was the impetus for change, not the intervention. Furthermore,
due to conditions beyond the control of this study the teachers had classes that were already
assigned and class times that were not identical in experience and class days and hours. These
conditions may have influenced the outcomes and should be controlled for in subsequent studies.
Another potential limitation is the make up of the control and experimental groups. In
the experimental group there were more female students compared to male students than the
control group. It is difficult to determine if this had an impact on the results. However, group
differences were controlled for in the data analysis.
Future Research

120

There are multiple directions for future research. First and foremost additional research
on the potential impact of direct instruction within preschool environments must continue to be
researched. Currently, within early childhood education there is debate about if play and direct
instruction can be blended or if they are instead play and direct instruction create too broad of an
instructional framework and they cannot be blended (Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2011). This
study begins to delve into the framework of utilizing a curriculum that is focused on the whole
child, Creative Curriculum (Dodge et al., 2002) while embedding a small amount of direct
instruction in emergent literacy skills. The initial results show promise. Future research needs to
begin to further investigate numerous components of this concept which included: longitudinal
data of emergent literacy gain, skills best taught through direct instruction versus play-based
instruction, and ideal amount of time in direct instruction.
Future research needs to take place to further enhance the research standards. First,
conducting the study with additional standardized and fully research emergent literacy screeners
to enhance measurement of outcomes. Additionally, random assignment of students to condition
would also enhance the study. Another area for future research would to conduct the study again
with different intervention combinations. For example, one group would implement just KPALS, another would implement just DTPK, another group would implement both K-PALS and
DTPK, another group would implement K-PALS, Zoo Phonics, and DTPK, and a final group
would implement just Zoo Phonics. This arrangement with large enough sample sizes would
allow additional conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the intervention and potential
interaction between interventions, which this study does not aim to address. Finally, future
research should evaluate student level responsiveness to the interventions. For example, which

121

students benefit more from direct instruction over other children and what learning profiles are
associated with particular learning trajectories.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study adds to the body of research in that the KPALS and DTPK
interventions produced superior literacy skills in the areas of phonological awareness and
vocabulary. This work serves as a starting point to continue to investigate the impact of direct,
targeted instruction in preschool settings. If the study can be conducted again with additional
features it has the potential to enhance the corpus of literature surrounding preschool emergent
literacy outcomes.

122

APPENDICES

123

Appendix A
Curriculum-Based Vocabulary Assessment Measure and Rubric

124

Curriculum-Based Vocabulary Measure
Vocabulary Assessment

Child’s Name:

Directions: Assessor says, “What does (insert target word) mean?” If student does not answer
in 5 seconds restate the question, “What does (insert target word) mean?” If again, the child
does not respond move on to the next target word. Ask all 27 target words.

WRITE DOWN THE CHILD’S RESPONSE VERBATIM

1. Safe
2. Pretend
3. Responsible
4. Upside-down
5. Tool
6. Find
7. Inside
8. Seed
9. Outside
10. Beach
11. Shatter
12. Sandcastle
13. Crush
14. Worry
15. Destroy
16. Protect
17. Build
18. Nest
19. Shadow
20. Tracks
21. Warning
22. Weather
23. Join
24. Heavy
25. Ripe
26. Share
27. Cranky

125

Rubric
Target Vocabulary Word: Safe
Definition - Story: Not in danger
0 points (incorrect) - No response, Something you need to keep, I don’t know, Keep safe, Be
safe, Your safe, Keep safe, Have to be safe, Got to be safe, Better be safe, S, Do, You’ll be safe,
Doing something safe
1 point (example) – Hurt, Be safe and sound, no one getting you, be safe and not get hit by car,
don’t hit, middle of road, walking feet, not family, fire, be careful
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – dangerous, have to be safe and good
3 points (correct definition) – not in danger, be careful

Target Vocabulary Word: Pretend
Definition - Story: Make-believe you are someone or something else
0 points (incorrect) – punching, you’re playing, no response, you’re pretending, eating in room,
play with stuff, pretend, playing pretend, wanna play, something not right
1 point (example) – pretend to be . . . , different human, with babies, eat, costume, dead, save,
people, snow angel, animal, puppy, scare people, monster, puppet
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – be something, something else (play/pretend),
something doesn’t happen, dressing up and you’re not that person, to wish something is true
3 points (correct definition) – pretend your someone else, not real

Target Vocabulary Word: Responsible
Definition: Someone you can count on
0 points (incorrect) – responsible, no response, be responsible, nice, be safe, respectful, don’t let
on one in, everything you want, not be mean, don’t hit anyone and play nice
1 point (example) – be safe with sisters, pick up, keep something, responsible for child or baby,
be responsible to teacher, have to listen (mom, dad, teacher), don’t let anyone in, not in trouble,
2 points (partially correct definition and example)
126

3 points (correct definition) – respectful, being good

Target Vocabulary Word: Tool
Definition Something that helps you do something else
0 points (incorrect) – doing something, no response, breaks (something, stuff breaks fix it), too ot
T, using a tool, work on stuff, no touching
1 point (example) – fixing something, fix (fix stuff), hammering, sewing, building, fixing car or
trucks, hit down board, dad uses
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – you use something to work on and fix a car
3 points (correct definition) – something you use to fix

Target Vocabulary Word: Find
Definition To get something you are looking for
0 points (incorrect) find something, no response, someone wants something, be fined, someone is
mean you say find, fined, find stuff and fix it, finding to play, better be find, you’re okay, P, not
safe, good
1 point (example) Treasure hunt/buried treasure/surprises/treasure, found somebody, finding
your dog, find your friend, find someone, hiding, find toys, find Easter egg, could play and have
to find someone
2 points (partially correct definition and example) - Find something that is yours, lost and
someone found you
3 points (correct definition) – find something lost

Target Vocabulary Word: Upside-Down
Definition To turn something so the wrong side is up
0 points (incorrect) – silly/funny, laugh, upside down, no response, walking upside down, going
to fall, facing upside down, faking upside down, go upside down, something’s upside down,
stand upside down, upside down on something

127

1 point (example) – upside down on ceiling, hand upside down on feet, looking upside down,
hanging upside down, looks like walking on ceiling, I do upside down on couch, summersault,
headstand, standing on hands, hang from something like monkey bar, head on flood and feet on
ceiling, bar under legs
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – hanging on something
3 points (correct definition)

Target Vocabulary Word: Seed
Definition - A thing a plant grows from
0 points (incorrect) – no response, sees something, comes from a bird, seed(ing), finding a side,
eat something with sees, R, seeing, S, throw away, get something, guard plant
1 point (example) – bird seed, planting flower, planting seed, plant a pumpkin, trying to plant
tree/garden, plant food, plant blueberries, plant flower with water and sun, put in dirt and want to
grow, put seed in dirt, plant
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – grow something, grow a seed, grow,
growing flower, grow seed
3 points (correct definition) – grows plant, growing something, plant seed and grows into plant,
plants and grow plants

Target Vocabulary Word: Inside
Definition - The inner part of something
0 points (incorrect) – Don’t want to be outside, walk into door, be inside/inside, have to stay
inside, you’re inside, run in circle, home, coming inside, no response
1 point (example) – Inside house, when raining go inside, inside voice/quiet, inside bedroom
house/building, things you can do inside: drinking hot coco, play, warm, shoes off, play toys, not
outside, safe
2 points (partially correct definition and example)
3 points (correct definition)

128

Target Vocabulary Word: Outside
Definition - The outer part of something
0 points (incorrect) – want to play outside, play, you’re cold, you’re outside, going outside
somewhere, outside, sunny day, scream, have to play, better be outside, go outside people
working inside, when it rains (can rain), no response, when you go outside
1 point (example) – walk out door, playing outside: monkey bars, playgroup, garden, paying in
rain and puddles, bike, run and play
2 points (partially correct definition and example) 3 points (correct definition) -

Target Vocabulary Word: Shatter
Definition: To break into pieces
0 points (incorrect) – No response, scared, color pictures outside, shatter (something), whole,
cold, go in water, shivering, yelling, sunny day, like your cold, like a shatter, go in water
1 point (example) – shatter glass, no touch
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – things break, glass
3 points (correct definition) – something breaks, you break it

Target Vocabulary Word: Sandcastle
Definition: A pretend castle people make out of sand
0 points (incorrect) – you’re building your own, playing, build something, sand, you’re making,
beach (at beach), sandcastle, we put a sandcastle, you’re sand castling, no response
1 point (example) – build(ing), build it, build a sandcastle at beach, at beach making something,
building sand, making sandcastle, bring cars and crash, water knock down, breaking it
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – build something out of sand, made out of
sand, go to beach build out of wet sand, something built of sand that might get destroyed,
building something the princess and queen live in

129

3 points (correct definition) – build castle out of sand, castle made out of sand, go to beach and
make castle out of sand not sure if wet sand, making sandcastle out of sand

Target Vocabulary Word: Beach
Definition: The ground that is next to the water
0 points (incorrect) – going to beach, at the beach, something’s a beach, find surprises, take bus
to beach and walk on, beach, going in water to swim, have to play, means play, play in water, no
response, where you play, summer time
1 point (example) – playing in: sand, beach, water, sandcastles, in Holland beach, hot and go to
beach to cool down, sand, get to play at beach, swim, bathing suit
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – sunny day go to beach and play in sand, get
to play in water and sand, playing at beach and making sandcastles, play on beach in the water,
swimming and playing in sand
3 points (correct definition) –

Target Vocabulary Word: Crush
Definition: To press something so hard it changes its shape
0 points (incorrect) – Falling, no response, crushing, a rock, when on a date with a boy, fall
crush, did something mean to friend, crushed, crush somebody/something, getting over, C, can’t
be safe, mean to friend
1 point (example) – Step on something, crushing: mud, sandcastle, bottle, pill, car, nut with
hammer, bottle, something, can, stuff
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – Crush things into pieces
3 points (correct definition) –

130

Target Vocabulary Word: Worry
Definition: To feel upset
0 points (incorrect) – don’t worry about something, no response, say something, about crushing
stuff, you’re worrying, don’t worry, worry about I don’t know, worried somewhere, when you’re
worried, M, where you can be safe, you get worried
1 point (example) – scared someone will get hurt, worry about: people, something, your mom is
not home from work, mom and dad in jail, you’re lost, mom, don’t know you have school, alone
2 points (partially correct definition and example) –
3 points (correct definition) – afraid, scared, feel sad

Target Vocabulary Word: Destroy
Definition: To smash and break apart
0 points (incorrect) – no response, not being nice, destroy something/someone, zombies coming,
went and destroyed, you’re destroying, we destroy, S, can’t touch, get destroyed, you’re safe
1 point (example) – destroy stuff, destroy nut, destroy tree, destroy house, destroy school, crane
picks something up and throws it, hammering stuff
2 points (partially correct definition and example) –
3 points (correct definition) – ruin something

Target Vocabulary Word: Protect
Definition: To keep out of danger
0 points (incorrect) – no response, protecting someone/you/self/something, protect, talking to
someone else, B, made fart and doesn’t destroy fart,
1 point (example) – protect dog/fire/child/mom/family/cat/stuff/baby/people, you’re safe,
protecting yourself, someone’s protecting you, family will protect you
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – on a mission with kids and have to protect
them
3 points (correct definition) – make someone safe, safe
131

Target Vocabulary Word: Build
Definition: Putting smaller parts together
0 points (incorrect) – no response, build something/stuff, build, don’t knock down, build
something from dumpsters, building something at home, B, do, building, hiding stuff
1 point (example) – trucks build, build something with blocks, build a pretend
house/tower/truck/car/castle, you’re building, when you build something and get wood cut
2 points (partially correct definition and example) –
3 points (correct definition) –

Target Vocabulary Word: Nest
Definition: A place where animals lay their eggs
0 points (incorrect) – birds, no response, building something, nest, it means baby, the birds get
the egg, you’re nesting, N, when back, birds can hatch
1 point (example) – a bird is in the nest, birds, next, birds lay in nests, birdy in there, building a
nest, birds live in them, a bird builds a nest, home for birds
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – when you’re building a nest for your birds
kids, coming out of an egg
3 points (correct definition) – Some bird or chicken in nest, lay eggs, birds eat and lay eggs

Target Vocabulary Word: Shadow
Definition: dark shape made when someone blocks the light
0 points (incorrect) – That you pretend to be something, there's a shadow, your shadow, no
response, person made out of light, something is making a shadow, people, cold, have your
shadow, scary, shadow, you go deep in forest, means that someone is there she’s a shadow like a
door, shadowing, Sh, summer with sand, make a picture, dark
1 point (example) – Shadow covers the sun with the trees, when you have a shadow you get
scared at night, when your right by the tree you see shadow, make shadow with hands, pretend
monster with flashlight, suns out
132

2 points (partially correct definition and example) – cover sun with tree, when it’s sunny out you
can see your shadow, sun shining on you
3 points (correct definition) – sun making shadow

Target Vocabulary Word: Tracks
Definition: Marks made by the feet of the person or animal
0 points (incorrect) – no response, means you’re driving, cars go on tracks, for trains, tracks that
go by, going on a bus ride, train, a choo-choo trains coming, tracks, follow stuff, stopped in the
car, tractor, train tracks, tractor
1 point (example) – things that make tracks (ducks/trains/shoes/quad/bike/trucks), stepping on
sand, leaving tracks on floor with dirt, cheetahs find tracks,
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – you leave tracks on something, leaving
tracks, when drive a car in dirt and grass and leave tracks, humans and animals make tracks,
tracks show
3 points (correct definition) – footstep in snow/sand

Target Vocabulary Word: Warning
Definition: Something that tells you about danger
0 points (incorrect) – Warn something/someone, no response, warning, vampire after you,
morning, get a up and play outside, it’s warm, only get one warning Someone’s coming, sunny
day, W, wake up, you’re scared or something, something coming
1 point (example) – warning if there is a fire, don’t go in road, your mom warns you, no hit when
playing, not listening
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – Telling someone to not go places, if there is
a fire you will warn someone, you blow a whistle that a storm or fox is coming
3 points (correct definition) – telling someone to watch out

Target Vocabulary Word: Weather
Definition: What is feels like outside
133

0 points (incorrect) – watching the weather, check the weather, no response, weather is bad, a
movie and watch to see weather, when don’t know weather, look at weather on tv, L
1 point (example) – windy, rainy, raining, sunny, snowy, cloudy, warm, bad weather scary,
something makes weather like a tornado
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – cold outside and warm, weather out today
3 points (correct definition) –

Target Vocabulary Word: Join
Definition: To connect or link something together
0 points (incorrect) – happy, come back, no response, in people, join in good
thing/something/someone/me, if you don’t you just go with then, you’re going to your house,
letting someone in, you’re joining, jellyfish, have a good day, joining
1 point (example) – when you go to someone’s birthday, everyone comes to join your house,
invite someone over, when you join a friend and take car of them, join the
club/people/party/game/play/song
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – join in and ask friend if you come there
3 points (correct definition) –

Target Vocabulary Word: Heavy
Definition: Something that weighs a lot
0 points (incorrect) – you’re building something heavy, something’s heavy, really heavy, play
with micky mouse, nice to people, heavy, no response, when you brothers, I am heavier, I don’t
know, you’re heavy, H, when you die, something’s really low
1 point (example) – weight, something too heavy for you, a bunch of apples, heavy when
carrying something, can’t pick stuff up, carrying a car, tree is heavy, when to pull something and
heavy, heavy to pick up, really heavy like stone or wood
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – carrying heavy backpack and have to take
stuff out, weight, strong guy can lift, can’t carry, pull something too heavy
3 points (correct definition) –
134

Target Vocabulary Word: Ripe
Definition: Ready to pick and eat
0 points (incorrect) – no response, ripe, ripe a potato, red/green/blue, writing something, when
you’re playing with a tiger and you get stripes, ripe something, you’re being nice, you write
pictures, it’s ripe, B, safe, something ripe, cooking something, you have stripes
1 point (example) – strawberry, apple, banana, grapes, eating fruit
2 points (partially correct definition and example) –
3 points (correct definition) – ready to pick, ready to eat, when fruit is ripe and you can eat them

Target Vocabulary Word: Share
Definition: Give some to somebody else
0 points (incorrect) – no response, share, take turns, sharing, share something
1 point (example) – share toys with sister, share toys, you share, you’re sharing, you have to
share, share with someone, sharing is caring, share your dress, share stuff, share sand or play
dough, share to for 10-15 days
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – giving toys
3 points (correct definition) – give and take

Target Vocabulary Word: Cranky
Definition: Bad mood, upset easily
0 points (incorrect) – you’re cranky, no response, you’re playing, being cranky, you don’t like
any, cranky, crankin, get all cranky, you’re crankier, cranking someone, C, robbers, you’re
scared
1 point (example) – didn’t get enough sleep, go to room if you wanna to be like that, cranky to
someone, being annoying, cranky and want to go to bed, dad is being cranky, you’re whining
2 points (partially correct definition and example) – you get cranky and mad, sad
3 points (correct definition) – you’re mad, someone’s mad, you get mad, mad at someone, you’re
really angry
135

Appendix B
Sight Word Assessment List

136

Sight Word Assessment List
I, my, and, it, a, one, see, big, into, in, goes, is, am, green, as, to, can, take, make, the, for its, do,
no, she, he, said, so, made, was, of, you, went, pull, we, now, then, at, have, an, out, by, up, from,
some, come, me, go, their, long, what, why, when, like, look, yes, mom, dad, cat, love, they, on,
will, are, stop, dog, here, not, where, who

137

Appendix C
Procedural Fidelity Measure

138

Procedural Fidelity Checklist
Experimental Condition
Date:
Evaluator:
Teacher:
Table 19
KPALS Instruction
Intervention Component
Delivered in Small Group
Time of small group

Game sheet for each child
Proper materials
Completed first letter
naming
Completed first ‘game’

Completed second letter
naming
Completed second ‘game’

Followed scripted lesson
plan
Group responses
Individual responses

Indicators
Yes
No
_____ 8-10 minutes
_____ less than 8 minutes
_____ more than 10
minutes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Game Name:
Yes
Yes

No
No

Game Name:
Yes
Yes

No
No

Yes
Yes

No
No

139

Additional Comments:

Table 20
DTPK Instruction
Intervention Component
Delivered in large Group
Time of large group

Proper materials
Completed before reading
strategies
During reading questions
Completed after reading
questions
Completed vocabulary
targets
Followed scripted lesson
plan
Group responses
Individual responses
Concepts about print

Indicators
Yes
No
_____ 10 minutes
_____ 15 minutes
_____ 20+ minutes
Yes
No
_____ out of ______

Additional Comments:

_____ out of ______
_____ out of ______
_____ out of ______
Yes

No

Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No

Table 21
Zoo Phonics
Intervention Component

Indicators

Delivered in large Group

Yes

Duration

_____ 5 minutes

Additional Comments:
No

_____ less than 5 minutes
_____ more than 5 minutes
Reviewed all zoo phonics
animal names

Yes

No

Reviewed all zoo phonics
animal sounds

Yes

No

140

Appendix D

Concepts about Print Cue Card

141

Print Cue Card:
-

-

Point out the cover of the book
o Author
o Title
o Where to start reading
Throughout the book point out:
o Punctuation
o Words
o Letters
o Letters in words (beginning, middle and end)
o Where to start reading
o Where to go after finishing a line

142

BIBLIOGRAPHY

143

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams & Company. (2000). Let’s read with the letter people. Waterbury, CT: Abrams
& Company.
Adolf, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Lee, J. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second versus
eight grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(4),
332-345. doi: 10/1177/0022219410369067
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of
the prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. Olympia, WA. Retrieved June 30, 2011 from http://www.
wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=04-07-3901.
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541-552.
Bailet, L. L., Pepper, K. K., Piasta, S. B., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Emergent literacy
intervention for pre-kindergarteners at risk for reading failure. Journal of Reading
Disabilities, 42(4), 336-355. doi: 10.1177/0022219409335218
Baker, C. N., Kupersmidt, J. B., Voeger-Lee, M. E., Arnold, D. H., & Willoughby, M. T.
(2010). Predicting teacher participation in classroom based, integrated preventative
intervention for preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 270-283. doi:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.09.005
Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy
implications. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center &
Educational Policy Research Unit. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/preschool-education
Barnett, W. S. & Frede, E. C. (2011). Preschool education’s effects on language and
literacy. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research
(pp. 435-449). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Bartik, T. (2012, March). Investing in kids: Early childhood programs and local
economic development. Grand Haven Chamber of Commerce, Grand Haven, MI.
Bayat, M., Mindes, G., & Covitt, S. (2010). What does RTI (Response to Intervention)
look like in preschool? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 493-500.
doi: 10.1007/s10643-010-0372-6
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust
vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
144

Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G. Gibbs, S. L., & Flowers, C. (2008).
Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant
developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33-52.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J. & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2011). Preschool behavior problems in
classroom learning situations and literacy outcomes in kindergarten and first grade. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 61-73. doi: 10.1016/j/ecresq.2010.04.004
Bunn, R., Burns, M. K., Hoffman, H. H., & Newman, C. L. (2005). Using incremental
rehearsal to teach letter identification with a preschool-age child. Journal of EvidenceBased Practices for Schools, 6(2), 124-133.
Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education effect cognitive
development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for
children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25,
140-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.11.001
Buysse, V. & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2009). Recognition and response (R&R)
Implementation sites in Florida and Maryland. In M. R. Coleman, F. P. Roth, & T. West
(Eds.), Roadmap to Pre-K RtI. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved
from http://www.ncld.org
Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Konold, T. R., & McGinty, A. S. (2011). Profiles of
emergent literacy skills among preschooler children who are at-risk for academic
difficulty. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 1-14. doi:
10.106/j.ecresq.2010.05.003
Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Zucker, T., & Kilday, C. R. (2009). Validity of teacher
report for assessing the emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Language,
Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 161-173. doi: 10.1061/09/4002-0161
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S. & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of
early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College
Record, 112(3), 579-620. doi: 0161-4681
Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. & Bradfield, T. (2010, February). What happening in tier one
early literacy instruction? Examination of the foundations of RtI in pre-k. Panel
presentation at the 7th annual biennial conference on Research Innovations in Early
Intervention (CREI), San Diego, CA.
Carta, J. J. & Buysse, V. (2008). What do we know and what does it look like? Response
145

to intervention (RTI) in early childhood. Presentation at the OSEP National Early
Childhood Conference, Washington, DC.
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Atwater, J. (2010). Tier 1 instruction in early
education classrooms: Implications for response to intervention. Presentation at the RtI
Early Childhood Summit, Kansas City, MO.
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Acheivement. (2001). Put Reading
First. http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/researchread.htm
Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. (2011). RTI Early Childhood
Summit, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM.
Children’s Learning Institute (2010). Developing Talkers: PreK. Texas: University of
Texas.
Christie, J. F. (2008). The scientifically based reading research approach to early
literacy instruction. L. M. Justice & Vukelich, C. (Eds.). Achieving excellence in
preschool literacy instruction, (pp.25-40).
Clements, D. H. & Sarama, J. (2003). DLM early childhood express math resource
guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, M. R., Roth, F. P., & West, T. (2009). Roadmap to pre-K RtI. In M. R.
Coleman, F. P. Roth, & T. West (Eds.), Roadmap to Pre-K RtI. National Center for
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org
Cosgrove, M., Fountain, C., Wehry, S., Wood, J., & Kasten, K. (2006). Randomized
Field Trial of an Early Literacy Curriculum and Instructional Support System. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
Cunningham, D. D. (2010). Relating preschool quality to children’s literacy
development. Early Childhood Development Journal, 37, 501-507. doi: 10.1007/s/0642009-0370-8
Cunningham, D. D. & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934945. doi: 0012-1649-97
Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kurz, T. B., &
Shih, M. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention scaled up in
multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394-416.
Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in
146

reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201211. doi: 10.111/1540-5826.00075
Dial, A. R. & Payne, R. L. (2010). Recasting the role of family involvement in early
literacy development: A response to the NELP report. Educational Researcher, 39(4),
330-33.
Diamond, K. E., Gerde, H. K., & Powell, D. R. (2008). Development in early literacy
skills during the pre-kindergarten in head start: Relations between growth in children’s
writing and understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 467-478.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.05.002
Dickinson, D. K. & Daroow, C. L. (2013). Methodological and practical challenges of
curriculum based lagnuage interventions. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early
Childhood Literacy: The national early literacy panel and beyond (pp. 195-216).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for
language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher,
39(4), 305-310. doi: 10.3102/0013189x10370204
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Sprague, K. (2003). Teacher rating of oral language and
literacy: early literacy instruction with a standards-based rating tool. The Reading
Teacher, 56(5), 554-564.
Dion, E., Brodeur, M., Gosselin, C., Campeau, M., & Fuchs, D. (2010). Implementing
research-based instruction to prevent reading problems among low-income students: Is
earlier better? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(2), 87-96. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00306.x
Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroam, C. (2002). The creative curriculum for preschool
(4th ed.). Washington DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2011). DIBELS Next. Retrieved from
https://dibels.org/next/index.php
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2010). DIBELS Next benchmark goals and composite
scores. Retrieved from https://dibels.org/response_to_uo_goals.html
Elliot, E. M. & Olliff, C. B. (2008). Developmentally appropriate emergent literacy
activities for young children: Adapting the early literacy and learning model. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 35, 551-556. doi: 10.1007/s10643-007-0232-1
Englert, C. S. & Mariage, T. The Sociocultural Model in Instructional Intervention
Research in Literacy. In press.
147

Frey, N. & Fisher, D. (2010). Reading and the brain: What early childhood educators
need to know. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 103-110. doi: 10.1007/s/0643010-0387-z
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186. doi: 10.1111/15405826.00073
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word
recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of
Special Education, 39(1), 34-44. doi: 10.1177/00224669050390010401
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Al Otiaba, S., Thompson, A., Yen, L., McMaster, K. N., . . .
Yang, N. J. (2001). K-PALS Helping kindergarteners with reading readiness: Teachers
and researchers in partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 76-80.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P. G., Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning
strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational
Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206. doi: 10.3102/00028312034001174
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in
a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children,
76(3), 301-323.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otiabe, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M. &
O’Connor, R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs: A randomized
field trial with teachers a program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(2), 251-267. doi: 10.1037/0022-0662.93.2.251
Gee, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and literacies. London: Falmer Press.
Genishi, C. & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children language and literacy. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gettinger, M. & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response-to-intervention model for
early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 27(4), 198-213.
Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: a meta-analytic affirmation of the
short- and long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly,
16(1), 9-30. doi: 10.1521.scpq.16.1.9.19163
Greenwood, C. R. (2009). Foreword. In M. R. Coleman, F. P. Roth, & T. West (Eds.),
Roadmap to Pre-K RtI. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ncld.org
148

Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander, D.
(2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1-22.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, R., McConnell, S. (2009). Center
for response to intervention in early childhood (CRTIEC) consortium partner states:
Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon. In M. R. Coleman, F. P. Roth, & T. West (Eds.),
Roadmap to Pre-K RtI. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ncld.org
Gregory, A. E. & Cahill, M. A. (2010). Kindergartners can do it, too! Comprehension
strategies for early readers. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 515-520. doi:
10.1598/RT.63.6.9
Grisham-Brown, J., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Hawkins, S. R., Winchell, B. N. (2009).
Addressing early learning standards for all children within blended preschool classrooms.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(3), 131-142. doi:
10.1177.0271121409333796
Good, R. & Kaminski, R. (2011). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy, Next.
Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
Hair, E., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., & Calkins, J. (2006). Children’s
school readiness in the ECLS-K: Prediction to academic, health, and social outcomes in
first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 431-454. doi:
10/1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.005
Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., Pianta, R. C., Kilday, C., Sweeney, B., Downer, J. T., &
Leach, A. (2010). Implementation fidelity of My Teaching Partner literacy and language
activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25, 329-347. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.002
Hargrave, A. C., & Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool
children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic
reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 75-90. ISSN: 0885-2006
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating
scale-revised edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hatcher, P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by
integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills. Child Development, 65(1),
41-57.
149

Hawken, L. S., Johnston, S. S., & McDonnell, A. P. (2005). Emerging literacy views
and practices: Results from a national survey of Head Start preschool teachers. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 25(4), 232-242. doi: 10.1177/02711214050250040401
Heckman, J. J. (2000). Invest in the very young. Chicago: Ounce of Prevention and the
University of Chicago. Retrieved from
http://www.ounceofprevention.org/downloads/publications/Heckman.pdf
Helm, J. H. & Katz, L. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the early
years. New York: Teachers College Press.
Henry, A. E. & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Effective teacher-child interactions and
children’s literacy: Evidence for scalable, aligned approaches to professional
development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 308-321). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Hindman, A. H., Connor, C. M., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Untangling
the effects of shared book reading: Multiple factors and their associations with preschool
literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 330-350. doi:
10/1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.005
Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2011). The great balancing act: Optimizing core
curricula through playful pedagogy. In E. Zigler, W.S. Gilliam, & W.S. Barnett (Eds.),
The pre-k debates: Current controversies and issues.
Holdaway, (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney, Australia: Ashton Scholastic.
Invernezzi, M., Landrum, T. J., Teichman, A., & Townsend, M. (2010). Increased
implementation of emergent literacy screening in pre-kindergarten. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 37, 437-446. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0371-7
Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J.
M. (2009). Response to intervention: Implications for early childhood professionals.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 424-435.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from
first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 4, 437-447. doi:
0022-0663/88/500.75
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Pence Turnbull, K. L., Skibbe, L. E. (2009) School
readiness among children with varying histories of language difficulties. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 460-476. doi: 10.1037/a0014324
Justice, L. M., Chow, S., Capellini, C., Flanigan, K.,& Colton, S. (2003). Emergent
literacy intervention for vulnerable preschoolers: Relative effects of two approaches.
150

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(3), 320–332. doi: 10580360/03/1203-0320
Justice, L. M. & Ezell, H. K. (1999). Vygotskian theory and it’s application to language
assessment: An overview for speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in
Communication Science and Disorders, 26, 111-118.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word awareness
through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9(3), 257–269. doi: 1058-0360/00/0903-0257
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print
awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1),
17–29. doi: 1058-0360/02/1101-0017
Justice, L. M., Kaderavak, J. N., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating
preschoolers’ early literacy development through classroom-based teacher-child
storybook reading and explicit print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40(1), 67-85.
Justice, L., McGinty, A., Piasta, S., Kaderavek, J., & Fan, X. (2010). Print-focused
read-alouds in preschool classrooms: Intervention effectiveness and moderators of child
outcomes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(4), 504–520.
Justice, L. M. & Pullen, P. C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting
emergent literacy skills: Three evidenced-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 23(3), 99-113. doi: TECSE 1177/02711214030230030101
Kaminski, R. & Bravo-Aguayo, K. (2010). Preschool Early Literacy Indicators.
Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
Kantor, R., Miller, S. B., Fernie, D. E. (1992). Diverse paths to literacy in a preschool
classroom: A sociocultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 184-201.
Kim, Y., Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., & Zhou, C. (2010). The contributions of
phonological awareness and letter-name knowledge to letter-sound acquisition – A crossclassified multilevel model approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 313326. doi: 10.1037/a0018449
Klein, A., Starkey, P., & Ramirez, A. B. (2002). Pre-K mathematics curriculum. United
States of America: Scott Foresman.
Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Shelley, G. (2009). The effct of tier 2 intervention
for phonemic awareness ina response-to-intervention model. Language, Speech &
Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 116-130. doi: 0161-1461/09/4002-0116
151

Landry, S. H. (2011). Tier one: Key components of effective tier one instruction:
Supporting young chidlren’s language and literacy development. Presentation at The
Preschool Response to Intervention Summit, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM.
Landry, S. H., Crawford, A., Gunning, S., & Swank, P. (2002). Teacher behavior rating
scale. Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education:
Unpublished research document.
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & King, T. (2009). The CIRCLE
phonological awareness langage and literacy system (C-PALS): Technical manual.
Children’s Learning Institute: Unpublished research.
Loftus, S. M. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, B., Zipoli, R., Pullen, P. C. (2010). Effects of a
supplemental vocabulary intervention on the work knowledge of kindergarten students at
risk for language and literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
25(3), 124-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00310.x
Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Development, assessment, and promotion of literacy skills.
Early Education and Development, 17(1), 294-311. doi: 10.1207/5/s15566935eed1701-5
Lonigan, C. J. & Cunningham, A. E. (2013). Significant differences: Identifying the
evidence base for promoting children’s early literacy skills in early childhood education.
In T. Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early Childhood Literacy: The national early
literacy panel and beyond (pp. 161-194). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
Lonigan, C. J. & Shannahan, T. (2013). Reflections on the national early literacy panel:
Looking back and moving forward. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early
Childhood Literacy: The national early literacy panel and beyond (pp. 273-303).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Lonigan, C. J. & Farver, J. M. (2002). Litearcy express: A preschool emergent literacy
curriculum. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Mannes, T. (2011). The effect of tier one literacy practices on preschoolers’ emerging
literacy skills. (Unpublished practicum research). Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
Mashburn, A. (2008). Evidnce for creating, expanding, designing, and improving highquality preschool programs. In L. M. Justice & C. Vukelich (Eds.). Achieving excellence
in literacy instruction (pp. 5-24). New York: Guilford.
Mathes, P. G., Clancy-Manchetti, J., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Kindergarten Peer
Assisted Literacy Strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
McDonald, C. & Figueredo, L. (2010). Closing the gap early: Implementing a literacy
152

intervention for kindergarteners in urban schools. The Reading Teacher,
63(5), 404-419. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.5.6
McGinty, A. S., Briet-Smith, A., Fan, X., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N. (2011). Does
intensity matter? Preschools’ print knowledge development with a classroom-based
intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 255-267. doi:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.02.002
McKey, R. H., Condelli, L., Ganson, H., Barrett, B. J., McConkey, C., Plantz, M. C.
(1985). The impact of head start on children, families and communities. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Stock No. D17-092-00098-7
McMaster, K. L., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ response to intervention.
Exceptional Children, 74(2), 194-214.
Missall, K. N., McConnell, S. R., & Cadigan, K. (2006). Early literacy development:
Skill growth and relations between classroom variables for preschool children. Journal
of Early Intervention, 29(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1177/105381510602900101
Michigan Board of Education. (2001). Michigan Literacy Progress Profile. Lansing,
MI: Central Michigan University Printing Office.
Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, MI. (2005). Early Childhood Standards of
Quality for Prekindergarten.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009).
Developmentally appropriate practice and intentionality: Big ideas. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/ecprofessional/DAP%20and%29Intentionality%20
Big%20Ideas.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and International
Reading Association (IRA). (2009). Learning to Read and Write:
Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from
www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/learning_readwrite

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006). Response to
intervention: Policy considerations and implications. Alexandria: National Association of
State Directors of Special Education.
National Institute of Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the
National Early Literacy Panel. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPshanahan.html
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 for Literacy.
153

Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal
research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention and Treatment, 6, 134.
Neuman, S. B. (2011). The effects of vocabulary interventions for children at risk:
Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Presentation at The Preschool Response to
Intervention Summit, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM.
Neuman, S. B. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the National Early
Literacy Panel Report. Educational Researcher,39(4), 301-304. doi:
10.3102/0013189x10370475
Neuman, S. B. & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k.
The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384-392. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.5.2
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (NCLB). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
Notari-Syverson, A., O’Connor, R. E., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Ladders to literacy: A
preschool activity book. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Paris, S. G. (2011). Developmental differences in early reading skills. In S. B.
Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 228-241).
New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Pellin, B. & Edomnds, E. (2001). Bright Beginnings. Charlotte, NC: CharlotteMecklenburg Schools.
Pentimonti, J. M., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B. (2013). Sharing books with children. In T.
Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early Childhood Literacy: The national early literacy
panel and beyond (pp. 117-134). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Phillips, B. M. & Piasta, S. B. (2013). Phonological awareness and alphebt knowledge:
Key precursors and instructional targets to promote reading success. In T. Shanahan &
C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early Childhood Literacy: The national earl yliteracy panel and
beyond (pp. 95-116). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Piasta, S. B. & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis
of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8-38. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B.,
Davis, M. J., . . . . Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book reading
intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children,
77(2), 161-183.
154

Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an
early literacy professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299-312. doi: 10.1037/a0017763
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (2008). Effects of Preschool
Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER 2008-2009). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pretti-Fronztcak, K. (2011). Understanding the practical and system level
recommendations for ensuring access and participation of all young children.
Presentation at the Michigan Association for Administrators in Special Education,
Lansing, MI.
Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010).
A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: the effects of tiered
instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 25(3), 110-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00309.x
Rafdal, B. H., McMaster, K. L., McConnell, S. R., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2011). The
effectiveness of kindergarten peer-assisted learning strategies for students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 299-316.
Roth, F. P., Rogers, P., Michney, J., & Mahon, N. (2009). The literacy partnership
implementation site Washington DC. In M. R. Coleman, F. P. Roth, & T. West (Eds.),
Roadmap to Pre-K RtI. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ncld.org
Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Training phonological skills and
letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten
intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(2), 284-295. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.284
Scott-Little, C., Lesko, J., Martella, J., & Milburn, P. (2007). Early learning standards: Results
from a national survey to document trends in state-level policies and practices. Retrieved
from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/little.htm
Senechal, M. (2011). A model of the concurrent and longitudinal relations between
home literacy and child outcomes. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 175-188). New York, NY: The
Guildford Press.
Shanahan, T. & Longigan, C. J. (2013). The national early literacy panel: A summary
report. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early Childhood Literacy: The national
earl yliteracy panel and beyond (pp. 1-20). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
155

Share, D. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: A causal
connection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 213-233. doi:
10.1016/j.jecp.2004.03.005
Silverman, R. & Crandal, J. D. (2010). Vocabulary practices in prekindergarten and
kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 318-340. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.3.3
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1999). Language and literacy environments in
preschools. In E. Digest (Ed.). ERIC Identifier: ED426818
Spencer, E. J., Spencer, T. D., Goldstein, H., & Schnieder, N. (2013). Identifying early
literacy learning needs: Implications for child outcome standards and assessment
systems. In T. Shanahan & C. J. Longigan (Eds.), Early Childhood Literacy: The
national earl yliteracy panel and beyond (pp. 45-70). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Company.
SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2003a). DLM Early Childhood Express. Desoto, TX: Author.
SRA/McGraw-Hill (2003b). Open Court Reading Pre-K. Desoto, TX: Author.
Success For All Foundation. (2003). Curiosity Corner. Baltimore: Author.
Sylva, K., Chan, L. S., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B.
(2011). Emergent literacy environments: Home and preschool influences on
children’s literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook
of early literacy research (pp. 97-117). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Sylva, K., Melhuis, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2011).
Preschool quality and educational outcomes at age 11: low quality has little benefit.
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 109-124. doi: 10.1177/1476718x10387900
Torgeson, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and reemdiation
of severe reading disabilites: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies in Reading,
1(3), 217-234. doi: 10.1207/s/532799xssr0103_3
Tracey, D. H. & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction on theories
and models. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tuckwiller, E. D., Pullen, P. C., Coyne, M. D. (2010). The use of the regression
discontinuity design in tiered intervention research: A polit study exploring vocabulary
intrection for at-risk kindergarteners. Leraning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(3),
137-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00311.x
U.S. Department of Education (2002). Good Start, Grow Smart. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
156

VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2005). Intervention-drive assessment practices in early
childhood/early intervention: Measuring what is possible rather than what is present.
Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 28-33.
VanderHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. A. (2006). Integrating frameworks from early
childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young
children. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 16.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Snyder, P. A., Broussard, C. & Ramsell, K. (2007). Measuring
response to early literacy intervention with preschoolers at risk. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 232-249. doi: 10.1177/0271121407311240
Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Buzhardt, J. F. (2008). Developmental
indicators for progress monitoring and intervention decision making in early education.
Exceptionality, 16, 33-47. doi: 10.1080/09362830701796784
Wang, C. & Algonzzine, B. (2008). Effects of targeted intervention on early literacy
skills of at-risk students. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(4), 425-439.
doi: 0256-8543/08
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstien, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Corne, D. A., & Fischel, J.
E. (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542-55. doi: 0022-0663/94
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69, 848-872. doi: 0009-3920/98/6903-0015
Winter, S. M., & Kelley, M. F. (2008). Fourty years of school readiness research: What
have we learned? Childhood Education, 84(5), 260-266. doi:
10.1080/00094056.2008.10523022
Wood, J. (2002). Early Literacy and Learning Model. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Institute
of Education and the University of North Florida.
Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Doors to discovery: A new prekindergarten
program. Bothhell, WA: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.
Wrighton, C. & Bradshaw, G. (1985). Zoo Phonics. www.zoophonics.com
Xu, Y. & Drame, E. (2008). Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential
of response to intervention for English language learners. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 35, 305-311. doi: 10.1007.s10643-007-0213-4
Zucker, T. A., Solari, E. J., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (in press). Early language
intervention for pre-kindergarteners at risk: a tier one and tier two response to
intervention pilot study. Early Education and Development.
157