Project Ready! An Early Language and Literacy Program to Close the Readiness Gap

Abstract

A key to reducing reading difficulty, particularly for children living in poverty, is to provide high quality, explicit, and well-planned instruction from the start of a child’s school career. Preschools that provide quality language, literacy, and content instruction have produced promising positive effects on children’s later academic achievement. However, many preschool programs are not equipped to provide quality instruction due to lack of teacher preparation and/or curriculum materials. Even teachers with advanced degrees may struggle with instruction due to weak and/or non-existent instructional materials. This project piloted a low-cost, research-based language and literacy instructional program for preschool children living in poverty. Results of the implementation school were compared to two control groups (low-income and middle-income populations) and indicated meaningful skill development as evidenced by gap-closing rates of growth and decrease in percentage of children at risk for reading challenges.

The ability to read is paramount for social and economic advancement in our society, yet devastatingly large numbers of children continue to experience difficulty with reading, and significant gaps exist among economic and racial lines (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Children’s skill sets entering kindergarten significantly predict first-grade reading scores, regardless of poverty, race, or numerous other variables (Callaghan & Madelaine, 2012). Reading difficulties that begin early in life are devastatingly stable across a child’s school career (Juel, 1991). Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those who are learning English as a second language too often begin school with lower pre-academic skills than their peers. Inequality in early childhood experiences and learning produces inequality in achievement, health, and adult success, indicating a social justice issue (Heckman, 2011). Entering kindergarten with strong literacy and language skills provides a critical foundation to education. In contrast, without quality early intervention, the skill gap widens throughout the elementary school years (Barnett, 2011; Carta et al., 2019; Chernoff et al., 2007; Garcia et al., 2016; Greenwood et al., 1994).

Early childhood education can have a profound effect on a child’s academic success, particularly for children from low-income households and dual language learners (Ladd, 2017; Phillips et al., 2017). There have been a number of large-scale longitudinal studies focused on understanding school readiness and the opportunity gap. These studies have confirmed the importance of high quality early childhood education and provide insight that can inform current efforts to improve early literacy (see Griffin & McCardle, 2013 for a review). There is a clear recognition of the need to provide high quality and well-planned instruction from the start of a child’s school career that focuses on important knowledge and skills that are known for their impact on student academic outcomes (Barnes et al., 2016; Lonigan & Phillips, 2015).

Research has outlined the foundational skills in language and literacy that should be a focus for intentional instruction in early childhood. The Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008) identified key foundational skill areas, the importance of which has been strengthened and expanded with subsequent research: phonological processing, print knowledge, and oral language (Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013). In a recent meta-analyses of preschool enhancement programs, Joo et al. (2020) found that adding skills-based language and literacy curricula to early childhood programs produced “large improvements in children’s cognitive abilities, pre-academic skills, and overall outcomes” (p. 15). Skill based programs that focus on key early language and literacy targets, as articulated by the Report of the NELP (2008) and subsequent research (see Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013; Curenton et al., 2013 for review) produce increases in school readiness skills (Curenton et al., 2013; Duncan et al., 2015; Joo et al., 2020). Literacy 3 D (Greenwood et al., 2017) and Bright Start (Piasta et al., 2021) are two recent examples of promising skilled-based enhancement/intervention programs seeking to close the opportunity gap and ensure all children are ready for kindergarten. There is still a striking need for accessible, integrated core instructional practices. “Whereas some interventions and instructional practices may have been validated as effective, the number of practices that have been validated for use in early childhood settings is still quite limited” (Carta, 2019, p. 4). The research support for the specific validated early literacy practices are outlined below.

Phonological Processing and Letter Knowledge

Prior et al. (2011) found that pre-literacy skills, comprised of phonological awareness and letter knowledge, were the strongest predictors of school readiness with oral language also showing critical importance. Phonological awareness instruction and intervention have been shown to produce strong gains and efficacious outcomes across many studies (Gillon, 2004; Koutsoftas et al., 2009; Yeh & Connell, 2008; Ziolkowski & Goldstein, 2008). The NELP’s (2008) meta-analytic results indicated that small-group instruction in phonological skills resulted in increased phonological awareness and early literacy skills. These results were even stronger when combined with instruction utilizing letters and print. Results of phonological intervention showed positive gains for all students when short, frequent mini-lessons in phonological awareness are embedded into a preschool curriculum. Phillips and Piasta (2013) indicated that overall code-focused instruction had moderate-to-large effects on later reading skills and results remained consistent across varied ages, formats, and duration of instruction, indicating that the specific variables are less important than simply having an intentional instructional time devoted to explicit instruction of phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge (Phillips & Piasta, 2013).

Oral language, listening comprehension, and knowledge

Oral language continues to be a strong predictor of achievement through third grade (Hart & Risley, 1995; Suskind, 2015; Walker et al., 1994). Effective language instruction includes a focus on skills such as listening comprehension with strong language models, understanding of vocabulary connected to background knowledge, and the development of expressive language. NELP results indicated positive impact of shared reading and interactive shared reading (dialogic reading) on oral language and listening comprehension skills. As Massaro (2015) noted, children’s books have many more unfamiliar words than child-adult conversations, so vocabulary can be developed through intentional teacher focus on word choice and instructional routines (Beck et al., 2002) supported by exposure to the vocabulary through shared reading. Research supports whole and small group shared reading using evidence-based techniques including dialogic reading, word elaborations, print referencing, exposure to varied genres of text, and repetition of texts to increase understanding (Pentimonti et al., 2013). Despite the promise of well-planned shared reading instruction, these instructional techniques are currently not implemented in many preschool classrooms (Dickinson et al., 2003).

Recent research has highlighted the promise of building content knowledge to facilitate language comprehension and reading achievement (Tyner & Kabourek, 2020; Wexler, 2019). Building content knowledge includes developing rich vocabulary and oral language skills to understand and discuss concepts across a multitude of academic topics. This need for content-connected vocabulary and oral language instruction is present for all children (Massaro, 2015), but particularly important for English learners and children living in poverty (Tyner & Kabourek, 2020). Additionally, researchers have found limited focus on genres such as informational text in preschool classrooms (Pentimonti et al., 2011).

Professional learning and coaching

Many states have intentionally aligned their early learning standards to more closely reflect the work of the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP, 2008; Griffin & McCardle, 2013). In Ohio, where this pilot study was implemented, the 2015 adoption of Ohio’s Early Learning and Development Standards: Birth to Kindergarten Entry provides clear examples of alignment with NELP findings. However, the number of domains and standards within each domain, often found in state early learning standards, can be overwhelming and require instructional materials that are comprehensive and integrated across domains (Griffin & McCardle, 2013).

Despite this rich research base regarding key knowledge and skills needed to successfully prevent academic concerns and a strong movement toward state standards alignment with current research on early learning, many preschools continue to rely on a whole-child curriculum which has been shown to be less effective than a skills-based curriculum targeting these specific literacy expectations (Griffin & McCardle, 2013; Phillips et al., 2017). According to the National Survey of Early Care and Education, the most widely used early childhood curricula are whole-child curricula, despite lack of empirical support for their effectiveness and the stronger support for systematic skill-specific curricula (Jenkins & Duncan, 2017). Additionally, many preschool programs are not equipped to provide quality instruction due to a lack of teacher preparation in effective research-based instruction (Mashburn et al., 2008). Not surprisingly, a limited amount of instructional time is being spent on research-based language and literacy skill development. Greenwood et al. (2017) found that across the 65 classrooms in their observational study, an average of only 16% of total observed time was spent on effective language and literacy activities.

Preschool teachers need effective instructional materials and support in implementing quality instruction. Teacher professional development and coaching that includes an understanding of why the essential components of early language and literacy instruction are important and how to reliably implement specific effective instruction is crucial for successful implementation of research-based instruction (Griffin & McCardle, 2013). The Preschool Task Force identified the following components as “good bets” for fostering early learning in preschool settings stating, “curricula that are known to build foundational skills and knowledge, coupled with professional development and coaching that enable teachers to create organized and engaging classrooms” (Phillips et al., 2017, Consensus Statement). Research also indicates a clear need for professional development coupled with coaching to implement these effective instructional practices (Fixsen et al., 2005; Hindman & Wasik, 2012). Effective coaching includes direct feedback on the implementation efforts of specific classroom instructional routines (Abbott et al., 2011).

There is a clear need for early language and literacy curricula in early childhood that is skill-focused, integrates other instructional domains, include strong teacher professional learning, and embeds predictable routines and related factors to support engaging classrooms. To meet this need, a low-cost, comprehensive early language and literacy preschool program was developed and piloted with one school (two classrooms) and results were compared with classrooms in two other schools. The program includes a research-based comprehensive instructional curriculum that incorporates all of the Ohio’s Early Learning Standards with a strong focus on language, literacy, and knowledge building, implemented in an explicit instructional framework (Archer & Hughes, 2011) and incorporating professional development and coaching for teachers. Additionally, a key outcome of the project was to create a program that had social validity, where the educators involved valued and desired the program’s implementation and executed it with fidelity. “Social validity refers to participants’ perceptions regarding the goals, procedures, and effects of a practice” (Lindo & Elleman, 2010, p. 489). Too often in research social validity is not acknowledged, yet it is a key variable in understanding if a new practice will be continued beyond the scope of the research project (Lindo & Elleman, 2010).

The pilot project’s research questions were:

1. At baseline, do children in the high poverty schools (implementation school and matched control school) perform significantly lower on early literacy measures than children in the higher SES (advantaged control) school?

2. Does the research-based instructional program accelerate early language and literacy growth of economically disadvantaged preschoolers, surpassing similar children, to a level comparable with economically advantaged preschoolers?

3. Can an effective, systematic, research-based early language and literacy program be created that is both valued by teachers and implemented with fidelity?

Method

Setting and participants

Setting

The study was conducted in seven full-day preschool classrooms across two inner-city parochial schools and one suburban parochial school. Each school had one classroom serving 3-year-old children and one or two classrooms serving 4-year-old children. The teacher to child ratio across all classrooms was 1:8–1:9. Each classroom had one teacher and one assistant. One school served as the implementation school where the program was piloted, one served as the matched control group to the implementation school, and the final school served as an economically advantaged control group. The three schools were within five miles of each other and were selected based on their demographics. Each school agreed to participate in the condition into which they were invited. The two inner-city parochial schools were implementing Creative Curriculum (Dodge et al., 2002). This widely used curriculum was also the curriculum adopted by the nearby large urban school district. Creative Curriculum was included in the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium Report (2008) and demonstrated poor effects on child outcome measures of language and literacy skills in randomized and quasi-experimental efficacy studies. The suburban school used Big Day for PreK (Cunningham et al., 2015). It is described as a skills based program and on the Head Start Curriculum Review Tool, Big Day for PreK was rated as having “no evidence” for child outcomes due to a lack of experimental studies.

School selection

School selection began with the implementation school. The selection criteria was as follows: (1) At least 85% of the preschool population were eligible for free lunch. (2) At least 60% of the preschool population were not Caucasian. (3) At least 30% of the preschool population did not have English as their first language. (4) Both three and 4-year old preschoolers were included in at least two preschool classrooms. (5) School was willing to fully participate in the research requirements.

The project had an advisory team made up of 15 local early literacy experts that guided the project and curriculum development. The advisory team was asked to help identify schools that met the criteria. Four schools were identified and the lead researcher contacted the school principal and shared a one-page description of the project and outlined participation requirements. From the four contacted schools, one was not interested and three requested a meeting with the researcher. Two of the three interested schools did want to participate, but had restrictive policies about implementing research that made the project prohibitive for that school year. The final school became the implementation school.

The matched-control group was picked based on their proximity to the implementation school, met the same criteria as the implementation school and had similar demographics. This parochial school in the same neighborhood agreed to participate.

Finally, the economically advantaged control group was selected based on the following (1) No more than 10% of the preschool population were eligible for free lunch. (2) No more than 5% of the preschool population did not have English as their first language. (3) Both three and 4-year old preschoolers were included within at least two preschool classrooms. (4) School was willing to fully participate in the research requirements.

Schools were again approached by the lead researcher. Five schools were contacted, but only one was interested in meeting to learn more about the project. This school agreed to participate. There was no prior connection to the researchers at any of the three schools.

Preschool children

There were 34 children in the implementation school, 32 at the matched control school and 35 children at the economically-advantaged control school (see Table 1). At the implementation school, the final data analysis consisted of 32 children; two children from the 3-year-old classroom were not included due to missing data (were not enrolled at the time of data collection). At the start of the project, the 32 children in the final data analysis included 21 boys and 11 girls and had a mean age of 4.2. All of the children were eligible for free and reduced lunch and, in both classrooms, 60% of the children were English Language Learners. Seventy percent of the children were Latinx, 5% African, 15% African-American, and 10% were Caucasian.

Table 1. Comparisons between implementation school and economically matched and economically controlled schools.

	Implementation school			matched control			Economically-ADVANTAGED CONTRol
	Demographics of Students
	All	3 year olds	4 year olds	All	3 year olds	4 year olds	All	3 year olds	4 year olds
Mean Age	4.2	3.7	4.6	4.5	3.7	4.8	4.4	3.9	4.8
Male	21	8	13	12	2	10	14	8	6
Female	10	7	3	10	4	6	11	4	7
% Poverty	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	0%	0%	0%
African	5%	–	–	5%	–	–	0%	0%	0%
African-American	15%	–	–	25%	–	–	0%	0%	0%
Latinx	70%	–	–	55%	–	–	0%	0%	0%
White	10%	–	–	15%	–	–	100%	100%	100%
English Learner	60%	60%	60%	45%	45%	45%	0%	0%	0%

The matched control group had 32 children across one 3-year-old class and two 4-year-old classrooms; 22 children participated in the study. The 22 participating children included 12 boys and 10 girls with a mean age of 4.5 years. All of the children were eligible for free and reduced lunch and, in both classrooms, 45% of the children were English Language Learners. Fifty-five percent of the children were Latinx, 5% African, 25% African-American, and 15% were Caucasian.

The economically advantaged control group had 35 children in the classrooms of which 25 children participated in the study. At the start of the project, the 25 participating children included 14 boys and 11 girls with a mean age of 4.4 years. None of the children were eligible for free and reduced lunch, 0% were English Language Learners and 100% were Caucasian.

Teachers

The teachers and assistants involved in the project varied slightly in terms of education and experience with the teachers at the implementation school having the least amount of experience and education. The implementation school had one teacher and one assistant in each classroom, with education ranging from unfinished college to bachelor’s degrees and a range of 2–3 years classroom experience. One of the two teachers held a teaching license. At the matched control school all of the three teachers held teaching licenses, two held bachelor’s degrees, and one held a master’s degree. Their classroom experience ranged from 5–13 years. Due to small class sizes, the three classrooms shared an assistant. This assistant had an associate’s degree and 5 years of experience. At the economically advantaged control school, one of the teachers had a bachelor’s and one a master’s degree, with a range of three to 8 years teaching experience. The assistant teachers had high school or bachelor’s degrees and 5–12 years’ experience. Teacher to child ratios across most classrooms were 1:9 with one classroom’s ratio at 1:8 (3-year-olds at the advantage school).

Coaches

Two members of the research team served as coaches for this project. They wrote the curriculum and their primary role at the school was to conduct professional learning and coaching for the teachers and to obtain input from the teachers about the curriculum (how it was progressing and what was needed). Coaching involved modeling whole group and small group instruction, conducting observations for fidelity checks, and providing performance feedback. Four days a week during the 90-min instructional period, one of the two coaches was in the school (the coaches split the days). Direct support was faded across time. Both coaches have extensive background in the science of reading and early childhood education. The first has a PhD in School Psychology with an early intervention focus and the second has a Master’s degree in Reading Science and a background in Montessori education at the preschool and early elementary levels.

Research design

A quasi-experimental design with three naturally occurring groups was used. The implementation school was approached first to participate in the study and, once they agreed to participate, the two control group schools were approached. The matched control group shared demographics, close proximity and type of school (parochial). The economically advantaged control group shared close proximity and type of school (parochial) but served children from middle-class/upper middle class backgrounds.

Assessment measures and procedures

Preschool early literacy indicators (PELI)

The PELI was used to measure skill growth in language and literacy skills of the preschool children. It is a comprehensive standardized assessment with strong technical adequacy that is designed to assess growth in preschool language and literacy skills (Kaminski et al., 2014, 2018). The PELI consists of five subtests administered in a child-friendly storybook format: Alphabetic Knowledge (children name letter names they know on a page); Vocabulary (children identify items on a page); Oral Language (children engage in a guided retell); Listening Comprehension (children answer questions about the story); and Phonological Awareness (children identify the first sound of items seen in the story). PELI was administered prior to implementation and at the conclusion of the project. PELI was administered to all children in the project by two of the researchers (one of the coaches and another research team member who did not otherwise support implementation) who are trained to reliably administer PELI. To check inter-rater reliability for this project, three preschoolers were randomly chosen to be co-scored by the two assessors. This was done during the pretest and again at post-test for a total of six reliability assessment samples. Reliability ratings averaged 98% (range of 95–100%).

Program implementation

Program implementation was measured in two ways: direct observation using fidelity checks of instructional routines and teachers’ self-reports of frequency of curriculum instruction. Fidelity checklists were created for each of the four instructional routines (see Table 2). Direct observation using the fidelity checklists was conducted on 22 teaching sessions to understand if the curriculum was being implemented as planned and to provide teachers with feedback about instruction. The two coaches collected these data and shared it with the teachers. The coaches utilized a list of implementation steps to observe, checking off those implemented and making notes next to each with feedback regarding quality of implementation. Fidelity was measured by dividing the number of steps implemented by the total number of steps in the instructional routines. The teachers also measured the frequency of implementation of instructional routines through weekly activity self-reports. These reports documented how frequently the different components of the curriculum were completed (i.e., circle time, different small groups).

Table 2. Instructional routines used in project ready.

Instructional routine	Primary skills in every lesson
123 Story Book Routine – Connected to the theme Before Reading Introduce the theme/topic Introduce the book Point out title, author, and illustrator During Reading Reading with very few interruptions so children get a sense of the full story. Model thinking aloud. Draw children’s attention to key content and vocabulary using student friendly definitions. (Each book had around 6 key vocabulary words.) After Reading Ask for opinion Ask questions about the book. Activity with content & vocabulary Reinforce across the day!	Knowledge Building – book connected to theme Listening Comprehension & Oral Language – listening to a book and answering questions; retelling/ summarizing; inference; sequencing; stating an opinion, Vocabulary – story vocabulary (characters, setting, etc.); academic vocabulary; vocabulary connected to the theme. Print Concepts
2. SAMMY Wordless Books Routine – Connected to the theme Show children the book, reading title & author Ask children what they think this book is going to be about. Model the story. Teacher tells the story asking a few basic questions along the way. Make sure they understood what happened after the story is told by asking W questions (who are the characters, where did it take place, etc.) Your Turn: Read the book again, this time letting the children tell the story. Provide prompts as needed. After reading activity.	Knowledge Building – book connected to theme Listening Comprehension & Oral Language – listening to a book and answering questions; retelling; inference; using more complex sentences, Vocabulary – story vocabulary (characters, setting, etc.); vocabulary connected to the theme. Print Concepts
3. Telling Terrific Tales Read story (no book) and lay out puppets as you introduce each character. Show sequence cards and engage children in retelling what happened first, next, and last in the story. Handout puppets and assign parts. Re-read the story engaging the children to play their part. Help the children retell the story using the puppets. *Once the story is told a number of times and known well, add the materials to center play (basket with cards and puppets) for children to explore in free play.	Knowledge – Common fairytales and fables Listening Comprehension & Oral Language – listening to a story and answering questions without the aid of book; retelling a story; sequencing; using more complex sentences.
4. Alphabetics Phonological Awareness (PA)—using PA Level Activity Cards (3 different levels of difficulty) My Name: Name Recognition & PA Activity connected to skill level. PA Game (always) Read poem with featured letter Letters Introduce the letter bags for the day one at time (3 total with 1 unknown and 2 known) Explore the letters of the day. Pick 2-3 activities things to do using Letter Work Activities Make/write the 3 letters Pick 1-2 material to work with (ex. playdough, writing boards, pencil, etc.).	Phonological Awareness Letter Names and Sounds Basic Vocabulary Writing Skills Name Recognition

Teacher acceptability survey

At the conclusion of the project an acceptability survey was given to each teacher (lead teacher and assistant) at the implementation school. The survey included 12 questions asking the teacher to rate the overall project (5 items) and specific components of the project (7 items) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The questions queried each respondent’s view of the overall project (regarding the effectiveness in helping students, level of improvement, quality of information provided, improvement in teaching skills, plans to continue the following year) and components of the project (each instructional routine, interventions, professional learning, and family engagement). Five open-ended questions were presented to instigate suggestions to strengthen the project, insights regarding changes observed in students, perceptions into what was viewed as most and least effective, and the opportunity to make general comments.

Instructional program

Implementation and professional learning

The instructional program was implemented across 16 weeks during the second half of the school year. Approximately 90 min of instructional time was devoted to program instruction each morning. Prior to implementing the program the four teachers engaged in two half-day professional learning sessions led by the coaches. The first session focused on the importance of early language and literacy instruction, development as a whole, and then the research support for building oral language and listening comprehension skills utilizing Project Ready instructional materials. The second session was similar but focused on phonological awareness, letters, and print concepts. Each teacher implemented the program with the initial support of the coaches. The lead coach met with teachers once a month for coaching regarding the curriculum and its implementation. Across the first 3 weeks of implementation, the coaches modeled lessons and co-taught parts of the curriculum. Each instructional routine (see Table 2) in the curriculum was modeled one to two times based on teacher request. Based on individual requests, the Alphabetics small group was modeled three times for two teachers and four times for the two assistant teachers. After 3 weeks, additional modeling was not needed.

Curriculum

In recognition of the research on the importance of building content knowledge to further language comprehension and general cognitive skills (Tyner & Kabourek, 2020; Wexler, 2019), the program was developed to include rich content-based themes in topics connected to social studies, geography, and science (see Table 3). Each unit lasted approximately 3 weeks. Because it was being implemented in an Ohio school, the curriculum was also aligned to cover all of Ohio’s Early Learning and Development Standards: Birth to Kindergarten Entry (Ohio Department of Education, 2012).

Table 3. Scope and sequence of key skills.

Unit	Key knowledge taught
Unit 1—Kindness	Ways to show kindness to our friends, family, animals, and our planet Professions: veterinarian, zookeeper, animal shelter worker. Life cycle of dogs and cats Veterinarians’ tools: stethoscope, thermometer, scale, x-ray, etc. Earth is our planet Recycling, conservation Earth Day Math concepts: numbers (counting and number recognition), shapes, colors, directional words. Common stories (Telling Terrific Tales): Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Unit 2—North America	Maps and Globes Continents N. America is our continent Countries: USA, Canada, Mexico Animals of N. America and Where they live: Forest, farm, desert Amphibians: frogs and salamanders Life cycle of a frog and salamander Scientists and what they do Scientific tools: microscope, magnifying glass, binoculars, etc. Fossils and rocks Math concepts: numbers (counting and number recognition), shapes, directional words. Common stories (Telling Terrific Tales): Three Little Pigs
Unit 3—Astronomy	Earth, Planets in our solar system, Universe Scientists and what they do: astronomer, astronaut, engineer. Science tools: telescope Moon Moon landing Mars and Mars Rover-Curiosity NASA Stars and constellations Math concepts: numbers (counting and number recognition), shapes, directional words, size work (vocabulary and comparison of different sized objects) Common stories (Telling Terrific Tales): Little Red Riding Hood
Unit 4—South America	Maps and Globes Continents and Water Formations (Ocean, River) S. America is our continent Countries: Brazil, Argentina Animals of S. America and where they live: Rainforest and animals Plateau and llamas Ocean and ocean Animals Math concepts: numbers (counting and number recognition), shapes, directional words, sizes (small, medium, large), patterns Common stories (Telling Terrific Tales): The Little Red Hen
Unit 5—Botany	Plants and flowers Butterflies and bees Trees and birds Life cycle of butterfly, plants What living things need to grow Scientists and what they do: Botanist, Naturalist. Science Tools Stars and constellations Math concepts: numbers (counting and number recognition), shapes, directional words, measurement—weight and length Common stories (Telling Terrific Tales): Jack and the Beanstalk
Phonological skill sequence	Phonological Awareness Skills are introduced based on mastery of previous level. Three levels of activities were implemented: Level 1: Getting Ready for PA Basic vocabulary: Directions; order and sequence; prepositions Listening activities Following directions Environmental sounds Sentence segmenting Level 2: Beginning PA Word awareness and segmenting parts Compound words Syllables Level 3: Phonological Awareness Isolating initial syllable Isolating initial sounds Rhyming
Letter sequence	Letters were introduced in this order. Moved to new letters based on mastery. S, M, A, T, C, O, H, Z, I, D, N, L, E, B, W, U, X, F, V, R, J, K, P, Q, G, Y

The curriculum featured instructional routines for a whole-group circle time along with small group instruction (see Table 2). The instructional time started with the morning circle (approximately 15–20 min) and then transitioned into small group instruction and center time. Each teacher (teacher and teacher’s assistant) worked with a small group (10–15 min group meetings) while the remaining children learned and played in the classroom centers. All curriculum instructional components featured predictable instructional routines (Table 2) that were outlined and contained scripting of key information. The knowledge-rich content theme was introduced in circle time and reinforced across the small groups and center play. For each theme, a content-specific play-based center was introduced in the classroom. Each unit had an overall theme and subthemes. For example, in the “Kindness Unit” a subtheme focused on kindness to animals and an imaginary veterinarian’s office was set up in the classroom so the children could practice being kind to animals.

The curriculum utilized rich children’s literature and nonfiction books across circle time and the small groups. The children’s books were chosen carefully for their ability to teach the content to preschool-aged children, expand oral language and narrative skills and represent a diversity of children and families. Language development was a primary driver of the curriculum and reflected the strong research base demonstrating the predictive power of strong language skills on later academic outcomes for children along with research on the specific instructional techniques that increase language skills (Dickinson et al., 2010; Hogan et al., 2013; NELP, 2008; Pentimonti et al., 2013). As outlined in Table 2, there were three different language comprehension groups, utilizing different routines to teach oral language and listening comprehension skills shown to be important from research (Curenton et al., 2013; Gardner-Neblett & Iruka, 2015; NELP, 2008; Pentimonti et al., 2013; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). All routines were used across all units and focused on oral language (i.e., use of new vocabulary, verbal expression and reasoning, speaking in increasingly complex sentences) and listening comprehension skills (i.e., listening to stories, perspective taking, retelling, understanding key story concepts and events along with the vocabulary of texts and stories).

The first routine, 1-2-3 Shared Story Routine, was used in both the whole group and two small groups that included a reread of the whole-class circle time book where the teacher interactively reread the book in a small group, discussed it, and completed a related activity. This routine used a dialogic reading framework that incorporated key instructional activities that build listening comprehension: summarizing, modeling private speech or think-alouds, teaching key academic vocabulary, encouraging prediction, and story element questioning (Curenton et al., 2013; NELP, 2008; Pentimonti et al., 2013). In this routine, teacher language was outlined to increase child engagement in the story, elicit responses to specific questions, and expand the child’s thinking about the story and use of oral language skills.

The second language comprehension teaching routine was Telling Terrific Tales. In this routine the teacher did not use a book, but instead orally told a common story (fairy tale or fable) and then engaged the children in acting out the story using puppets and sequencing cards. This routine required the children to listen carefully so they were prepared to act out the story using their own language. Once children experienced the story in this small group several times, story cards and puppets were placed in a center to provide opportunities for the children to act out the story with their peers or independently. This routine utilized a highly motivating story-based play activity with strong demands on both listening and speaking skills that is known to be important for listening comprehension and oral language development (Curenton et al., 2013; Yazici & Bolay, 2017). The third language comprehension routine, SAMMY (Show, Ask, Model, Make sure they understand, Your Turn), involved engaging the children with a wordless picture book. The teacher told the story of a wordless book and then engaged the children in retelling the story and discussion through questioning (Dunst et al., 2012; Hogan et al., 2013; NELP, 2008; Pentimonti et al., 2013).

The goals of the language comprehension small groups were to build both listening and oral language skills and to develop print awareness skills. In each unit, there was one Telling Terrific Tale story, two to three theme connected wordless books, and four to six rereading lessons of the circle time book. The routines remained the same across the curriculum but stories and books changed according to the thematic unit. All children participated in each type of language comprehension group and had multiple exposures to the stories and books across a unit. The goal was for each child to have at least three language comprehension groups per week and the teachers developed a checklist to keep track of the lessons and groups. The language comprehension small groups were purposefully comprised of children at a variety of language levels, so children with lower language skills could benefit from peer models as well as teacher modeling.

The final small group was the Alphabetics group. This small group used a structured set of activities to teach phonological awareness, letter recognition, and letter sound knowledge (see Table 2 for sequence). A scope and sequence following research-based recommendations for teaching preschool children phonological and letter skills were developed (NELP, 2008; Paulson & Moats, 2018; Phillips & Piasta, 2013; Piasta & Wagner, 2010). The sequence included three levels of phonological skill games and the introduction of letters based on their frequency in language and ease of learning (see Table 2). The group met for approximately 15 min and consisted of a phonological component (5 min) and a letter component (10 min). The phonological awareness activities had three parts: (a) My Name Activity where children segmented their name within a sentence, then within syllables, and finally isolated the first sound; (b) one to two brief phonological games at one of the three levels (sentence, syllable, phoneme); and (c) a phonological poem introducing/reviewing a letter that was the instructional focus of the day. Movement to the next level of phonological activities was based on the children’s mastery. Teachers kept structured observational notes on how each child performed in the phonological games to determined when to move individuals up a level or to a different group. During the 10-min letter component, three letters were worked on: one that was new/not yet mastered and two that were known. Children practiced both the sound and the name of the letter, but the name was the focus. Teachers again kept structured observational notes to determine when a new letter should be introduced. The two known letters were rotated each day to provide review of a variety of letters across the week. The letter section of the group involved three parts as well: (a) introduction of the new letter or not yet mastered letter; (b) a review game with all three letters; and (c) an activity where the children made the letters, at first with objects such as playdoh and then eventually writing letters. The Alphabetics small group occurred three to five times per week with all children. Children were grouped based on skill level and these groups were fluid with children moving based on their mastery of skills or need for extra practice. All instructional routines were scripted.

Results

Children’s language and literacy achievement

Children’s language and literacy achievement were examined via visual analysis and statistical analysis using effect size and an independent-samples t-test comparing the implementation group to both the matched control group and the economically advantaged control group. Our hypothesis was that children who participated in the implementation group would accelerate literacy growth to outperform the matched control, decrease the achievement gap with the advantaged control group, and decrease percent of children at future risk of reading failure. The PELI results were used to evaluate program outcomes. Literacy gains were evident through analysis of the PELI composite score data for all children in the intervention group and for both the 3 year olds and 4 year olds when individually analyzed. Data were analyzed as a whole and by age group since different skill proficiency is expected at age three and age four.

With regard to research question 1, PELI data indicated that at the start of the project significant gaps were seen across both age groups between the school serving middle class children (advantaged control group) and the schools serving children living in poverty (the implementation group and the matched control group). Confirming the hypothesis for research question 1, children in the high poverty schools performed significantly lower on early literacy measures during baseline/pretest assessment (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Mean pretest and post-test PELI composite scores across the three groups.

The program was implemented across 16 weeks, and at the end of the study it was evident that the children at the implementation school demonstrated accelerated growth compared to the other two groups, meaningfully reduced the initial achievement gap with the advantaged control, and clearly outperformed the matched control (see Figure 1). By the end of the study, a substantial gap continued to be evident between the matched control group and the advantaged control group, but was drastically reduced between the advantaged control group and implementation group, clarifying research question 2: this instructional program can accelerate early language and literacy growth for economically disadvantaged preschoolers.

Statistical analysis

Pretest

Statistical analysis confirmed no significant difference between the implementation group 3-year olds (M = 46.9, SD = 39.4, n = 16) and matched control group 3-year olds (M = 57.7, SD = 51.5, n = 6) at the beginning of the study, t(7) = −.465, p = .328 (1 tail). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the 4-year old implementation group (M = 85.7, SD = 39.4, n = 16) and 4-year old matched control (M = 111.87, SD = 48.6, n = 15), t(27) = −1.64, p = .06 (1 tail) at pretest. Aligned with the visual analysis, there were statistically significant differences between the implementation group and advantaged control group at pretest for both age groups. Implementation 3-year olds (M = 46.9, SD = 39.4, n = 16) performed lower at pretest than advantaged control group 3-year olds (M = 130.3, SD = 45.4, n = 11) at a statistically significant level, t(20) = −4.94, p = .000 (1 tail). The same pattern was observed for implementation group 4-year olds (M = 85.7, SD = 39.4, n = 16) compared to advantaged control 4-year olds (M = 223.3, SD = 50.3, n = 13). This difference was also statistically significant, t(22) = −8.1, p = .000 (1 tail). As mentioned in visual analysis, children in the advantaged control group outperformed both lower SES groups at pretest. This is consistent with research indicating higher levels of school readiness among higher SES children (Callaghan & Madelaine, 2012).

Post-test

Following program implementation, it was hypothesized that the achievement of the implementation groups for both 3 and 4 year olds would be greater than the matched control group. This hypothesis was verified for the 3-year-old implementation group (M = 169.47, SD = 39.54, n = 17) compared to the matched control group (M = 88, SD = 32.39, n = 6). This difference was significant, t(11) = 4.99, p = .0002 (1 tail). This hypothesis was also verified for the 4-year-old cohort: The achievement of the 4-year-old implementation group (M = 208.06, SD = 8.24, n = 16) was greater than achievement of the 4-year-old control group (M = 143.8, SD = 13.6, n = 15). This difference was significant, t(23) = 4.04, p = .0002 (1 tail). These statistical results confirm the visual analysis showing that, across both age levels, children’s scores at the implementation school were substantially higher than matched control at post-test. Visual analysis also revealed a substantially reduced gap between the advantaged control group and implementation group. It was hypothesized that the achievement of the implementation group for 3 year olds (M = 169.5, SD = 39.5, n = 17) and 4 year olds (M = 208.1, SD = 33.0, n = 16) would no longer have a statistically significant difference from the advantaged control group of 3-year-olds (M = 184.5, SD = 33.8, n = 11) and 4-year olds (M = 244, SD = 32.2, n = 13). This hypothesis was verified for the 3-year-old cohort, with no significant difference at post-test, t(24) = −1.1, p = .15 (1 tail). Although the gap was closed for 4-year-olds, a statistically significant difference remained, t(26) = −2.96, p = .003.

Furthermore, substantially fewer children in the intervention group were at risk of reading failure (below the cut point for reading risk indicated on PELI) decreasing from 84% of all implementation children at risk prior to intervention to 13% at risk of future reading failure after intervention (post-test). In comparison, 68% of children in the matched control remained at risk at post-test. An effect size of d = 1.44 for the 4-year-old cohort and d = 2.15 for the 3-year-old cohort further confirm meaningful educational outcomes from this intervention when the implementation group was compared to the matched control (see Table 4).

Table 4. Percentage of children at-risk for reading concerns across the three schools.

School	Three-year-olds		Four-year-olds
	Pretest (%)	Post-test (%)	Pretest (%)	Post-test (%)
Implementation	65	5	100	19
Matched control	67	50	95	73
Advantaged control	18	0	8	8

Program implementation and satisfaction

With regard to the third research question, program implementation data demonstrated that the program was implemented by the teachers as designed and survey data indicated the value of the program.

Fidelity checks and self-reports

Fidelity checklists were created for each of the instructional routines outlining the key instructional components of the routine. Teachers’ fidelity to the instructional routine for whole group instruction (1-2-3 Storybook) was directly observed across 10 sessions and revealed a 100% implementation adherence to the instructional routine across all sessions. Direct observations of 12 small group lessons (three 1-2-3 Storybook small groups; four Alphabetic; three SAMMY, and two Telling Terrific Tales) indicated a 90% average with a range of 85%-100% fidelity to the instructional routines. This indicates that teachers accurately implemented the instructional routines. Additionally, teachers completed self-reports of the frequency of implementation of the different instructional routines (e.g., how many Alphabetics groups were done, when they were done, and which children participated). They were asked to document their instructional activities involving student participation each day across 1 week. This information was collected across 3 weeks during the study (weeks 6, 10, 14). These self-reports indicated that, on average, children participated in language comprehension (Telling Terrific Tales or SAMMY or 1-2-3 Storybook Re-Read) small group three times a week, and an Alphabetics small group four times a week for the lower skilled children and 2.5 times a week for the higher skilled children.

Teacher acceptability surveys

At the conclusion of the study the implementation teachers (both the lead and assistant teacher) were asked to complete an acceptability survey rating the overall effectiveness of the program and specific instructional activities (scale of 1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). Teachers were also asked open-ended questions including suggestions for the future. The average score overall across all 15 questions was 4.9. All but one question was given a consistent score of 5. The question that had a range of responses was related to family engagement and the average response was 4.5 (range of 4–5). Teacher’s comments consistently noted that they loved the instructional guidance the program provided, were thankful for the instructional routines, and were appreciative of the content of the small groups for both alphabetics and deeper teaching of language and content knowledge. They shared that language “took off” in their classrooms and children were exposed to “new and exciting topics that they loved.” Demonstrating their understanding and appreciation of the benefits of the program, the implementation school continued to implement the curriculum following completion of the research project.

Discussion

The purpose of this pilot project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive skills-based early literacy program in accelerating the language and literacy skills of children living in poverty and in substantially closing the opportunity/readiness gap between these children and their more economically advantaged peers. As research has indicated, preschoolers from low SES families or those who are English learners can show greater improvement in learning at the end of preschool compared to economically-advantaged and English proficient peers (Phillips et al., 2017), so we must capitalize on this opportunity by providing rich learning opportunities. The Project Ready! curriculum met this need for rich and rigorous curricula through its focus on research-based critical early language and literacy skills (phonological processing, print knowledge, and oral language; NELP, 2008). Similar to other skills-based early literacy programs (see meta-analysis by Joo et al., 2020) the pilot project did appear to increase the language and literacy skills of the preschool children who participated. This is evident by the steeper rate of growth of children in the implementation group, the final post-test scores of the children in the implementation group when compared to the match control group, and the significant decrease in percent of children at risk of reading difficulty from pre to post test in the implementation group. When compared to the economically advantaged control group, the implementation group’s rate of growth was clearly accelerated, the slope of line between pretest and post-test visually steeper, and the initial achievement gap considerably narrowed (see Figure 1). These results align with research indicating greater effectiveness of systematic skill-specific curricula over a whole-child approach (Jenkins & Duncan, 2017; Joo et al., 2020). This research-based instructional program was easily learned and effectively implemented by classroom teachers with a high level of both implementation fidelity and teacher satisfaction. The program clearly demonstrates that when given materials and support, preschool teachers can effectively implement powerful research-based instruction in a typical classroom setting serving children living in poverty. These findings contribute to the growing, and needed, research base demonstrating the application of practical evidence based instructional routines in early childhood settings (Carta, 2019; Odom & Fettig, 2013). Like other recent projects aimed at increasing literacy skills with classroom-based instructional activities (Greenwood et al., 2017; Piasta et al., 2020), Project Ready! sought to create an easy to use skills-focused early literacy curriculum that teaches these skills in a manner aligned with research support. Additionally, Project Ready! sought to teach these skills in the context of building strong content knowledge and replacing a current curriculum, rather than adding to a holistic curriculum, as time and issues of manageability often make the implementation of supplementary programs challenging (Carta et al., 2019).

Limitations

Despite the exciting initial results of the pilot study, there are several limitations. This was a pilot study that now needs to be followed up with a more rigorous plan for measuring program implementation and child achievement growth. This pilot project was limited in both time (16 weeks) and scope (one school; two classrooms compared to two other schools). The results, while promising, need to be expanded and replicated. Further, the program was enhanced by direct work of the coaches in the classrooms. This coaching allowed for clearer understanding, modeling of instruction, and assistance with children who needed support. While direct coaching and involvement was crucial in the pilot project, providing important information needed for curriculum development and teacher training, most preschool settings do not have access to this level of support. Therefore, replication with more realistic classroom and teacher support is needed. Additionally, the involvement of the research team had the potential to influence both the achievement data along with the teachers’ implementation and acceptability ratings. Finally, the primary focus of this study was the improvement of language and literacy skills and, as such, assessment focused on these skills. Although math, social studies, science, and social emotional skills were included and integrated into the language and literacy instruction for a more robust program, data were not collected to assess growth in these important skill areas as it was beyond the scope of this project. Future development of this project must include broader measurements of skills.

Next steps

Based upon the promise of the pilot study, there are several next steps to further this important work. Research should focus on the expanded implementation of the program across a full 2 years (typical preschool cycle) and in multiple schools within a variety of communities serving children living in poverty along with the evaluation of the program implemented entirely by classroom teachers with more realistic levels of coaching and consultation (i.e., initial training with a few follow-up visits). It is also important to understand the lasting effect of the program by following the children through kindergarten and elementary school and assessing a broader range of early learning skills, particularly early numeracy skills. Plans are currently underway to implement such a project.

This pilot study adds to the important research base on the power of and need for quality classroom language and literacy instruction (Carta et al., 2019). It is possible to significantly increase the early language and learning skills of preschool children living in poverty and reduce, and possibly eliminate, the readiness gap. Doing so requires adherence to content and instructional practices shown by research to be effective. Many early childhood educators do not have the materials and training they need to effectively impact their preschoolers’ language and literacy development (Barnes et al., 2016; Greenwood et al., 2013; Mashburn et al., 2008). Educators need easy access to materials that meet these criteria along with support for the implementation of sound practices in real classroom settings. This project demonstrates that this is possible. When rich content is provided and effective instructional practices are implemented, significant learning gains can be achieved.