Content uploaded by Jenifer Jasinski Schneider
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jenifer Jasinski Schneider on May 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
!"#$%&'(#)*+%,&$%-.,/*.&-+-%012%
34566$(+((+'7%8&'19
:/2%
;<%=&/5&'1%><;;
?))+$$%-+(&#*$2%
?))+$$%@+(&#*$2%3$50$)'#A(#./%/5B0+'%CD;D;>ED;9
F50*#$"+'%
G.5(*+-H+
I/6.'B&%J(-%G+H#$(+'+-%#/%K/H*&/-%&/-%L&*+$%G+H#$(+'+-%M5B0+'2%;<N>COE%G+H#$(+'+-%.66#)+2%8.'(#B+'%4.5$+7%DNP
E;%8.'(#B+'%Q('++(7%J./-./%L;!%D=47%RS
=.5'/&*%.6%K-5)&(#./%6.'%Q(5-+/($%F*&)+-%&(%G#$T%U=KQF?GV
F50*#)&(#./%-+(&#*$7%#/)*5-#/H%#/$('5)(#./$%6.'%&5(".'$%&/-%$50$)'#A(#./%#/6.'B&(#./2
"((A2WW,,,X#/6.'B&,.'*-X).BW$BAAW(#(*+Y)./(+/(Z(NNO[OD[[[
K66+)($%.6%&%\.BA5(+'P]&$+-%K&'*1%G+&-#/H%F'.H'&B%./%("+%K&'*1%G+&-#/H
&/-%:'&*%J&/H5&H+%QT#**$%.6%?(PG#$T%F'+$)"..*%\"#*-'+/
8&'1%4566$(+((+'&^%=&B+$%GX%S#/H0^%?/("./1%=X%:/,5+H05_#+0^%=+/#6+'%=X%Q)"/+#-+'0^%S+**1%?X%F.,+**P
QB#(")
&%Q&#/(%J5)#+%\.5/(1%Q)"..*%@#$('#)(7%0%R/#`+'$#(1%.6%Q.5("%a*.'#-&7%)%@1/&B#)%8+&$5'+B+/(%b'.5A7
:/*#/+%A50*#)&(#./%-&(+2%;[%@+)+B0+'%><;<
!.%)#(+%("#$%?'(#)*+%4566$(+((+'7%8&'1%7%S#/H7%=&B+$%GX%7%:/,5+H05_#+7%?/("./1%=X%7%Q)"/+#-+'7%=+/#6+'%=X%&/-%F.,+**PQB#("7
S+**1%?XU><;<V%cK66+)($%.6%&%\.BA5(+'P]&$+-%K&'*1%G+&-#/H%F'.H'&B%./%("+%K&'*1%G+&-#/H%&/-%:'&*%J&/H5&H+%QT#**$%.6
?(PG#$T%F'+$)"..*%\"#*-'+/c7%=.5'/&*%.6%K-5)&(#./%6.'%Q(5-+/($%F*&)+-%&(%G#$T%U=KQF?GV7%;O2%E7%>NC%d%>Ce
!.%*#/T%(.%("#$%?'(#)*+2%@:I2%;<X;<e<W;<e>E[[CX><;<XOD>E;O
RGJ2%"((A2WW-fX-.#X.'HW;<X;<e<W;<e>E[[CX><;<XOD>E;O
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Effects of a Computer-Based Early Reading Program
on the Early Reading and Oral Language Skills
of At-Risk Preschool Children
Mary Huffstetter
Saint Lucie County School District
James R. King, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Jenifer J. Schneider
University of South Florida
Kelly A. Powell-Smith
Dynamic Measurement Group
This study examined the effects of a computer-based early reading program (Headsprout Early
Reading) on the oral language and early reading skills of at-risk preschool children. In a pretest–
posttest control group design, 62 children were randomly assigned to receive supplemental instruction
with Headsprout Early Reading (experimental group) or Millie’s Math House (control group) for 30min
each school day for 8 weeks. Children using Headsprout Early Reading made greater gains in early
reading skills as measured by the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-3), F(1, 59) ¼39.35,
p<0.01, and in oral language skills as measured by the Test of Language Development-Primary
(TOLD-P:3), F(1, 59) ¼37.03, p<0.01. Effect sizes were large for the gains in both measures
(TERA-3, g
2
¼0.24; TOLD-P:3, g
2
¼0.17). Teachers’ responses to an open-ended interview indicated
that the program was perceived as a desirable instructional aid. Educational considerations for prevent-
ing future reading difficulties and issues about implementation integrity are discussed.
The preschool years are a critical period for the development of early literacy skills (Lonigan,
McDowell, & Phillips, 2004). Before children begin formal instruction, they acquire varying
degrees of familiarity with fundamental concepts related to literacy, such as the one-to-one
correspondence between spoken and written words (Adams, 1990), initial writing (e.g., writing
one’s own name), and phonemic awareness or the ability to identify the sounds within words
(Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Many of these early literacy skills are predictive of future reading performance once the
child begins formal instruction (Blok, Oostdam, Otter, & Overmaat, 2002; Lonigan et al.,
2004). For example, print awareness (e.g., knowing that text goes from left to right and
from top to bottom), familiarity with letter names and letter-sound correspondences, and
Correspondence should be addressed to Mary Huffstetter, 356 NW Stratford Lane, Port St. Lucie, FL 34983.
E-mail: huffstetterm@stlucie.k12.fl.us
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15: 279–298, 2010
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1082-4669 print=1532-7671 online
DOI: 10.1080/10824669.2010.532415
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
phonemic awareness correlate positively with reading ability (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony,
2000; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Oral language skills
such as vocabulary acquisition and application are also predictive of successful reading develop-
ment and text comprehension (Clay, 2001; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998; Torgesen, 2002). These early literacy skills, which typically develop during the preschool
years, lie on a continuum with early reading skills such as decoding, which typically develop
during kindergarten and first grade (Lonigan et al., 2000).
Many children from high-poverty backgrounds, however, have deficits in early literacy and
oral language skills when they enter kindergarten (Adams, 1990; Durkin, 1975; Hart & Risley,
1995; Stanovich, 1986; Stipek & Ryan, 1997; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton,
2006), which prevent them from fully benefiting from the instruction they will receive at school
(Lonigan et al., 2004; Snow et al., 1998). These children start school already at a disadvantage in
relation to their peers in areas such as letter recognition and symbol use (Stipek & Ryan, 1997),
phonological skills, print awareness, and vocabulary (Justice & Ezell, 2001; Torgesen, 1999), and
are more likely to be at risk for reading difficulties (Lonigan et al., 2004; Makin, 2003).
Unfortunately, individual differences in these skills tend to persist or widen across the elemen-
tary school years (Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986) and even continue into adulthood (Al Otaiba &
Fuchs, 2002; Juel, 1988). On the other hand, the relative disadvantage of children with poor early
literacy skills can be remedied by interventions designed to narrow these differences (Heath, 1983;
Lonigan et al., 2000; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994).
Interventions at the preschool level have been found to increase the academic performance
and reading achievement of children who are at risk for future reading difficulties (Vadasy
et al., 2006; Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006). For example, Connor, Morrison, and Slominski
(2006) found that activities such as learning phonological decoding and letter names were
associated with growth in alphabet and letter-word recognition knowledge, and that the growth
was more substantial when alphabet and word recognition skills were initially low. Wasik et al.
(2006) examined the effects of a language and literacy intervention in the oral language of
children attending Head Start. The intervention (which included book reading accompanied
by teachers asking open-ended questions, introducing target vocabulary, and labeling book-
related props) resulted in significantly higher scores on expressive vocabulary for children in
the intervention group, compared with children in a control group. Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui,
and Taver (2004) found that children whose language experience was poor relative to their peers
benefited from explicit instruction in vocabulary, oral language, and reading skills.
The preschool years are the time when interventions can be most effective because (a) literacy
skills are in gradual maturation during this period, and (b) by the time children enter kindergar-
ten, they are already expected to have the skills necessary to benefit from formal literacy instruc-
tion (Justice, Invernizzi, Geller, Sullivan, & Welsch, 2005). Effective interventions at the
preschool level could help minimize the likelihood that children from low-income backgrounds
will be at risk for reading difficulties when they begin formal education.
COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTION IN THE PRESCHOOL SETTING
Although literacy interventions can improve the performance of children who are at risk of
future reading difficulties, providing these interventions is often challenging. The complexity
280 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
of effective early reading instruction and children’s need for highly engaging academic activities
make providing the necessary intervention taxing for preschool teachers who may be teaching a
number of at-risk children (Crevola & Hill, 1998).
Computer-based instruction has become a possible resource to support the instruction
provided by teachers, and several authors have concluded that, when used appropriately, it
can serve as a beneficial tool in the preschool curriculum (e.g., Castellani & Jeffs, 2001;
Hutinger, Bell, Daytner, & Johanson, 2005). Computer-based instruction often incorporates
important pedagogical elements that are difficult to include in regular instruction, such as high
levels of explicit user responses followed by immediate, nonthreatening feedback (Blok et al.,
2002), visual graphics, and automatic branching based on individual performance, which allows
users to review the skills that are not fully developed and to move forward once the relevant
skills are mastered (Macaruso, Hook, & McCabe, 2006). Computer mice preclude the need
for highly-developed fine motor skills, making computer-based instruction a viable alternative
for preschool children (Alloway, 1994; Liu, 1996; Revelle & Strommen, 1990).
Previous studies on computer-based instruction in reading have shown evidence of effective-
ness in developing phonological skills in beginning readers (Macaruso et al., 2006; Reitsma &
Wesseling, 1998; see also MacArthur, Ferretti, Okolo, & Cavalier, 2001, for a review). Further-
more, evidence suggests that this computer-based instruction can be particularly beneficial for
children who are at risk and need additional support. For example, MacArthur and colleagues
found that the effectiveness of computer-based reading instruction at improving phonological
skills was more pronounced for children who were performing poorly relative to their peers;
and Macaruso and colleagues found that outcome differences after completing a computer-based
supplemental reading program increased when the analysis was restricted to low-performing
children.
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this study was threefold: (a) to determine whether a computer-based program
focusing on reading skills could be an effective means for increasing the oral language and early
reading skills of at-risk preschool children; (b) to examine teachers’ and other educators’ percep-
tions of and attitudes toward the program; and (c) to assess the integrity with which teachers
implemented the program, as implementation integrity is a key variable in determining the effec-
tiveness of educational programs (O’Donnell, 2008). To avert a common limitation of studies
examining the effects of computer-based instruction, we avoided having a no-treatment control
group (MacArthur et al., 2001). Instead, both groups in the study received regular reading
instruction in the classroom in addition to one of two supplemental programs: Headsprout Early
Reading (experimental group) or Millie’s Math House (wait-list control group, hereafter referred
to as control group).
Because one purpose of this study was to determine whether adding a computer-based pro-
gram would produce benefits beyond those typically provided in the classroom, rather than to
compare two different reading programs, the experimental group engaged in more reading
related activities (the computer-based program) than did the control group. The control group
engaged in a computer-based math program to control for any effect that engagement with a
computer-based program may have beyond the direct effect of the instructional content.
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 281
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Program Description and Selection
Headsprout Early Reading. Headsprout Early Reading served as the intervention pro-
vided to the experimental group. The whole program consists of 80 online episodes (lessons) that
last approximately 20 min each. In this study, however, we only included the first 40 episodes, as
they are considered developmentally appropriate for preschool children (Layng, Twyman, &
Stikeleather, 2004b). The online episodes use explicit instruction and cumulative practice to
teach phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, reading comprehension, oral reading, the use
of sound elements to decode words, print awareness, and deriving meaning from text (Florida
Center for Reading Research [FCRR], 2004; Layng, Twyman, & Stikeleather, 2003; Layng
et al., 2004b). These skills are considered to be part of effective reading instruction and are
predictive of future reading achievement (Adams, 1990; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Clay, 1993;
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Nine
patented teaching routines, summarized in Table 1, form the core of the program (U.S. Patent
No. 7,152,034, 2003). These routines are encompassed by four pedagogical frameworks: fulfill-
ment of mastery criteria, reduced errors design, guided practice, and cumulative review and
application (for more detail about the teaching routines and pedagogical frameworks used in
Headsprout Early Reading, see Layng, Twyman, & Stikeleather, 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Individ-
ual performance on the online episodes is recorded and made available to teachers via online
reports (Layng et al., 2004b).
In addition to the online episodes, the first 40 episodes of the program used in this study
include six sets of cards with the sounds and words taught in the program, and 30 printed stories
that children read aloud to an adult for additional practice. Six of the 30 stories are used as
benchmark assessments. During benchmark assessments, the teacher asks the child to read the
story out loud and records any errors or omissions. The result of the benchmark assessment
is a teacher-determined rating of performance as either independent, satisfactory, or in need
of practice. If performance is independent or satisfactory, the child can advance to the next epi-
sode in the program. If performance reveals the need for additional practice, the teacher can
decide whether to (a) reset the child to a previous online episode for additional practice and
review, (b) use the sets of cards to provide additional practice and review, or (c) a combination
of these.
TABLE 1
Nine Teaching Routines Incorporated into Headsprout Early Reading
Establishing routines Teach sound–letter correspondence and sight words through explicit instruction
Adduction routines Teach skills through a discovery learning method
Vocal potentiation routines Teach speaking out loud and become one’s own listener
Blending and segmenting routines Teach blending sounds together into words and segmenting words into their
individual sounds
Sentence and story routines Teach skills such as reading from left to right and reading for meaning
Fluency routines Involve guided, timed reading practice
Motivation routines Involve both extrinsic and intrinsic reward components
Application routines Involve applying skills and strategies to new words, stories, and contexts
Overall sequencing Designed to develop an interlocking set of skills and strategies and to allow to
begin reading quickly
282 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Headsprout Early Reading was selected on the basis of two criteria: reviews from independent
panels and evidence of effectiveness with young children. From the 28 technology-based
programs reviewed by the FCRR (2004), those for which the FCRR reported one or more weak-
nesses were eliminated from consideration. This resulted in a list of five remaining programs
(Earobics, Funnix, Headsprout Early Reading, Read Naturally, and Waterford) for evaluation.
Headsprout Early Reading was selected because (a) it is designed principally for independent
use without intensive supervision by teachers; (b) it does not require any beginning reading
vocabulary; and (c) it does not require extensive training for teachers.
Headsprout Early Reading’s evidence of effectiveness fulfilled the second criterion for
selection. In a study conducted by Layng et al. (2004a) as part of the program’s field testing,
23 kindergarten children were given the Diagnostic Reading Assessment after completing
episodes 1-40 of Headsprout Early Reading. All children scored at least at grade level, with
82%scoring above grade level. This result was compared to prior years, in which only 50%
of the children scored at grade level (Layng et al., 2004a).
In an initial study of episodes 1-80 of Headsprout Early Reading, Layng and colleagues
(2003) found that children entering kindergarten who had completed all 80 episodes reached
an average grade-level equivalent of 2.1 on the Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest.
Children entering first grade reached an average grade-level equivalent of 3.0 on the same subt-
est. On the Word Analysis subset of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, children entering kindergarten
reached an average grade equivalent of 1.4, and children entering first grade reached an average
grade equivalent of 2.5. Similar results were obtained for the reading total score of the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills, with children entering kindergarten scoring an average grade-equivalent of 1.6
and children entering first grade scoring an average grade-equivalent of 2.3.
Millie’s Math House. Millie’s Math House served as the intervention provided to the
control group. It is a CD-ROM software program that introduces and teaches fundamental early
math skills such as recognizing and reading numbers, practicing addition and subtraction facts,
identifying shapes, counting up to 30, comparing and matching objects by their sizes, and
creating and completing patterns and sequences (Silverman, n.d.). The software is designed
for children in preschool through second grade and uses spoken and graphic instructions to allow
prereaders and early readers to interact with the program. Children can experience two levels of
activities for each task: the explore mode, which presents basic concepts, and the question-and-
answer mode, which provides practice and application of the concepts learned (Silverman, n.d.).
Millie’s Math House was selected as the control intervention because (a) it was designed for the
same age group as Headsprout Early Reading; (b) it required nearly the same amount of training
and staff time as Headsprout Early Reading; and (c) it allowed children to use the program
independently.
METHOD
Participants
Children from two Head Start centers participated in the study. Both centers were randomly
selected from the five Head Start centers located in a mid-sized city on Florida’s east coast.
Sixty-two children who were enrolled in the two selected centers at the time of the study were
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 283
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
randomly assigned to groups, with 31 children assigned to each the experimental and the control
groups (no parental objections to participation or attrition occurred). This sample of 62 children
represented 22%of the total population of four- and five-year-old children in Head Start
programs in this city.
Table 2 shows demographic data for children in the experimental and control groups. All
children qualified for free or reduced-price lunch and came from families meeting the poverty
index guidelines for the state of Florida, based on the most recent data available at that time
(United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). English was the second
language of 32 of the children.
Five teachers and five teacher assistants who were already working with the children in their
classrooms received training on implementing the intervention programs and were interviewed
at the end of the study. Table 3 shows demographic data for teachers and teacher assistants.
Setting: Mobile Computer Lab
All children engaged in either Headsprout Early Reading or Millie’s Math House in a mobile
computer laboratory funded by private donors and charity foundations. The mobile computer
laboratory was a retrofitted school bus with 18 computers equipped with reduced-size computer
mice, Internet access, and Macromedia Flash plug-in availability.
Learning Measures
Test of Early Reading Ability, Third Edition (TERA-3). The TERA-3 measures early
reading skills in children from 3.5 through 8.5 years of age. It has three subtests (alphabet, con-
ventions, and meaning) that assess understanding of the alphabet and its functions, knowledge of
print conventions, and ability to derive meaning from print (Lonigan et al., 2004). Internal con-
sistency score reliability has ranged from .81 to .96 (FCRR, 2004), and test–retest reliability
TABLE 2
Children Demographic Data
Experimental Group Control Group
Age
Mean 60.39 months 60.61 months
Range 56–67 months 55–67 months
Gender
Male 19 15
Female 12 16
Ethnicity
African American 25 27
Hispanic 6 4
Educational considerations
English as a second language 17 15
Exceptional student status 3 0
No special consideration reported 11 16
284 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
from .86 to .99 (Lonigan et al., 2004). The concurrent validity of the TERA-3 is considered high
and was estimated by comparing the TERA-3 to norm-referenced measures such as the Stanford
Achievement Test-9 and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Lonigan et al., 2004).
Test of Language Development-Primary, Third Edition (TOLD-P:3). The TOLD-P:3
was used as both a pretest and posttest in this study. It includes six subtests that measure sem-
antics and syntax and is designed to assess the oral language competence of children four
through eight years of age (Lonigan et al., 2004). Internal consistency score reliability has been
found to range from .78 to .94, and test–retest reliability has been found to range from .77 to .90
(Rathvon, 2004). Concurrent validity with the Bankson Language Test-Second Edition ranges
from .50 to .97 (FCRR, 2004; Rathvon, 2004).
Both the TERA-3 and the TOLD-P:3 yield composite standard scores called quotients, with a
mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (Newcomer & Hammill, 1997; Reid, Hresko, &
Hammill, 2001).
Implementation Integrity Measures
Teachers’ implementation was assessed using one procedural checklist for each the experimental
and control programs (shown in the Appendix). The checklists were developed by the first
author after identifying necessary tasks for successful implementation of the programs, which
was done through observation of the programs and discussion with teachers. During each obser-
vation period, the first author observed teachers while they implemented the control or experi-
mental intervention. Each item from the applicable implementation integrity checklist was
marked as being present (if the teacher implemented the item) or absent (if the teacher failed
to implement the item). A teacher with experience in using both the experimental and the control
interventions served as a second observer during ten randomly selected observation sessions.
TABLE 3
Teacher and Teacher Assistant Demographic Data
Teachers Teacher Assistants
Gender
Female 5 5
Male 0 0
Ethnicity
African American 5 4
Caucasian 0 1
Classroom experience
0–2 years 0 1
3–5 years 1 1
6 or more years 4 3
Highest degree received
General education diploma 0 2
High school diploma 0 3
Associate degree 4 0
Bachelor’s degree 1 0
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 285
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Interview Protocol
A structured, open-ended interview protocol was developed by the first author to gather infor-
mation about the perceptions of teachers and their assistants regarding the instruction provided
by Headsprout Early Reading. The protocol was field-tested with two teachers and two teacher
assistants who had been using Headsprout Early Reading for nine weeks at another preschool in
the same city. Questions were modified based on information gathered during field testing. The
exact wording and sequence of questions was determined in advance of the present study, result-
ing in the questions listed in Table 4.
Procedure
Teacher training. The five participating preschool teachers and five teacher assistants were
trained to implement both Headsprout Early Reading and Millie’s Math House. The training
took place on two separate days at each of the two sites and was conducted by the first author.
Training consisted of oral explanations, modeling, and guided practice. Teachers were trained to
respond to technology issues (e.g., volume adjustments), to access and interpret performance
reports, and to intervene and redirect students to the task if necessary. Teachers and teacher
assistants were given a copy of the implementation checklists that were used to monitor
implementation integrity. They were also given access to the Headsprout Early Reading episodes
and the Millie’s Math House software for review.
Pretests. Before beginning the intervention and prior to randomly assigning participants to
groups, children were pretested with the TERA-3 and the TOLD-P:3 using the whole versions of
each test (no supplemental subtests were given). The TOLD-P:3 was administered first, in the
spring of preschool, followed by the TERA-3 within one week. Testing took place in a well-lit,
quiet room in each of two Head Start centers and was conducted by the first author, who had
prior training and experience in administering both tests.
Intervention. During the eight-week intervention period, children in the experimental group
received daily instruction with Headsprout Early Reading, and children in the control group
received daily instruction with Millie’s Math House. Each group received their assigned instruc-
tion for 30 min each day (not including transition time). Children were escorted to the mobile
computer laboratory by their teacher five min before their assigned instructional time, which
was in the mornings for one of the Head Start centers and in the early afternoons for the other
center. While one group was engaged in the intervention, the other group rotated through a series
of four classroom centers. After the 30 min of instruction, a brief transition time followed, and
then the other group was escorted to the mobile computer laboratory and the group that had just
received instruction went back to the classroom and rotated through the four classroom centers.
On the first two days in the mobile computer laboratory, the teacher helped children find their
computers, put on their headphones, and launch the programs. After the first two days, all chil-
dren were able to do this independently. The first author was present during the entire time the
children were on the computers and observed the teachers or assistants while they implemented
the program. To promote procedural integrity, the first author provided feedback to the teachers
and assistants after each session for both the experimental and control groups. Feedback
286 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
TABLE 4
Interview Protocol and Respondents’ Answers
Question Respondents’ Answers (Summarized) Frequency
Based on your interactions with the program
and the monitoring of your students, do
you think Headsprout Early Reading
helped develop your students’ oral
language skills? If so, how?
Students verbalized responses while on the
computer
2
Students recognized=blended sounds or
words
2
Students interacted more in class 1
Students adopted new words used by the
program
1
Students phonological awareness increased 1
n=a3
What early reading skills do you think
Headsprout Early Reading does a good job
of addressing?
All of them 2
Letter–sound relations=phonics 2
Sound identification, blending 1
Reading comprehension 1
Word identification 1
Print awareness, letter identification 1
n=a2
What early reading skills do you think
Headsprout Early Reading does not
address or addresses poorly?
None 9
n=a1
What difficulties, if any, did you experience
incorporating Headsprout Early Reading
into your existing curriculum?
None 7
Intervention began too late in school year 1
Insufficient staff to support program
implementation
1
n=a1
What activities, if any, were left out of your
day due to the addition of Headsprout
Early Reading?
None 5
‘‘Center time,’’ play time, or nap time was
reduced
4
n=a1
What are your thoughts about the
developmental appropriateness of
Headsprout Early Reading for your
students?
Note: This category also includes answers
related to students’ motivation toward the
program.
Program is appropriate for this age group 6
Students were ‘‘excited,’’ ‘‘liked,’’ or
‘‘loved’’ program
7
Students motivated by their progress in the
program
1
Students’ self-esteem increased 1
Two students said program was too long 1
Some students ‘‘burned out’’ because of
daily use of program
1
n=a3
What comments, if any, did you hear from
the students’ parents regarding their child’s
involvement in Headsprout Early Reading?
Parents were excited=enjoyed the program 9
Parents said they saw gains in child’s reading 1
Parents did not make comments on program 1
How would you measure the success of
Headsprout Early Reading?
Through ability to read, retention of sounds
learned
1
Through transfer of reading skills to other
books
1
Through excitement=interest about reading 2
n=a6
(Continued )
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 287
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
consisted of a review of the checklist and modeling of any tasks that did not occur during the
observation session.
Classroom literacy instruction. In addition to receiving one of the two interventions pre-
viously described, all children engaged in literacy activities as part of their regular classroom
instruction during the study. The lesson plans of the five teachers involved in this study were
examined and their contents categorized according to the skills tested by the TERA-3 and the
TOLD-P:3. The contents were then quantified according to the percentage of weeks during
the study in which each skill was present as part of the lesson plan. According to this analysis,
the alphabet and its functions was present between 75%and 88%of the weeks; phonological
awareness was present between 75%and 100%of the weeks; and print conventions, oral
language development, and finding meaning were each present 100%of the weeks.
Posttests. At the end of the eight-week intervention, children in both groups were tested
using an alternate form of the TERA-3 (the TOLD-P:3 does not have an alternate form, so
the same form was used for the pre- and posttests). Posttest administration and setting were
identical to those of the pretest.
Interviews. At the end of the intervention, all teachers and their assistants participated indi-
vidually in a structured, open-ended interview aimed at collecting preliminary qualitative data on
educators’ perceptions of the program. Each interview lasted approximately 30 min and was
conducted by the first author. The interviews were audiotaped and subsequently transcribed.
Poststudy instruction. After all the posttests were completed at the end of the study, chil-
dren in the control group were offered the experimental intervention during the summer at the
TABLE 4
Continued
Question Respondents’ Answers (Summarized) Frequency
How could Headsprout Early Reading be
improved upon?
Develop a readiness program for younger
students
1
Begin the program earlier in the school year 1
Celebrating [progress in the program] was
distracting
1
Allocate more staff to implement program 1
No suggestions for improvement 6
What are your thoughts about the possibility
of using Headsprout Early Reading in the
future?
Would like to continue with program 7
Would like to continue with program if . . .
more staff is available 1
program is implemented only twice a week 1
program is implemented inside the classroom 1
What thoughts do you have about your use of
Headsprout Early Reading that have not
been covered by the previous questions?
Liked the program=would like to continue
using it
5
Would use program three times=week
instead of five
1
Had no additional comments 4
Note.n=a¼The respondent failed to answer the question asked.
288 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
same sites where this study took place. Children in the experimental group who did not complete
the program in the initial eight-week period were allowed to continue during the summer period
if their parents so chose.
RESULTS
Implementation Integrity
Implementation integrity for each observed session was calculated by applying the following
formula to the implementation integrity checklists: (p=[pþa]#100), where prepresents the
number of items present and arepresents the number of items absent. Implementation integrity
percentages for Headsprout Early Reading ranged from 60%to 90%, with a mean of 77%.
Implementation integrity percentages for Millie’s Math House ranged from 60%to 100%, with
a mean of 78%.
Interrater reliability was measured for 12 of the 40 sessions, or 30%of the sessions where
implementation integrity was assessed. Kappa coefficients of interrater reliability were computed
for six sessions of Headsprout Early Reading implementation and ranged from 0.55 to 0.74, with
four of these coefficients being above the satisfactory level of 0.70. Kappa coefficients were
computed for six sessions of Millie’s Math House implementation and ranged from 0.62 to
0.74, with five of these coefficients being above the 0.70 level. These coefficients suggest mod-
erate to substantial interrater reliability (Landis & Koch, 1977) and are considered adequate for
the purpose of this investigation (Cohen, 1988).
Early reading skills. The top panel of Table 5 shows pretest and posttest mean quotients on
the TERA-3 for the two groups. The experimental group had a higher mean pretest quotient than
the control group, but this difference was not significant, t(60) ¼1.16, p¼0.25. Quotient gains
from pretest to posttest were significant for the experimental group, t(30) ¼7.01, p<0.01, but
not for the control group, t(30) ¼0.84, p¼0.41. An analysis of covariance for posttest quotients
(with pretest quotients as a covariate) indicated significantly higher quotients for the experi-
mental group, F(1, 59) ¼39.35, p<0.01, and a large effect size, g
2
¼0.24 (Cohen, 1988).
Oral language skills. The bottom panel of Table 5 shows pretest and posttest mean quo-
tients on the TOLD-P:3 for the two groups. The control group had a higher mean pretest quotient
TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics for Pretests and Posttests
Experimental Group (n ¼31) Control Group (n ¼31)
Mean SD Mean SD
Test of Early Reading Ability-3 (TERA-3)
Pretest 77.58 9.81 75.06 7.13
Posttest 87.13 8.62 75.90 7.55
Test of Language Development-Primary 3 (TOLD-P:3)
Pretest 80.26 11.76 81.45 9.49
Posttest 91.25 8.22 83.74 10.75
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 289
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
than the experimental group, but this difference was not significant, t(60) ¼0.44, p¼0.66. There
were significant quotient gains from pretest to posttest for both groups: for the experimental
group, t(30) ¼8.37, p<0.01; and for the control group, t(30) ¼2.87, p<0.01. However, an
analysis of covariance comparing posttest quotients for the two groups (with pretest quotients
as a covariate) revealed that posttest quotients were significantly higher in the experimental
group, F(1, 59) ¼37.03, p<0.01. The effect size (g
2
¼0.17) is considered large (Cohen, 1988).
Pearson’s correlation coefficient for quotient gains on the TERA-3 and TOLD-P:3 was
moderate (q¼0.47).
Teacher Perceptions
Table 4 shows the responses of the teachers and teacher assistants to the open-ended interview
conducted at the end of the study. Even though all teachers and teacher assistants participated in
the interview, some failed to answer the question as asked, by either restating something they
had stated previously or by making comments about aspects of the intervention other than those
requested by the question. In the former case, responses were counted only once; in the latter,
responses were counted within the category appropriate to their thematic content.
Seven respondents explicitly stated that Headsprout Early Reading helped their students
improve their oral language skills, and eight respondents stated that it helped students improve
their early reading skills (the remaining respondents failed to mention specific reading or oral
language skills and, instead, commented on how the program ‘‘made it fun’’ for students, or
simply agreed with the statement that the program helped develop those skills without providing
specific instances). The perception of which specific skills were improved within each domain
varied among respondents. None of the respondents indicated that Headsprout Early Reading
failed to adequately address a particular reading skill.
Six respondents considered Headsprout Early Reading to be appropriate for preschool
children, one did not answer the question as stated, one reported that some children ‘‘burned
out’’ because of the (daily) frequency of program implementation, and one reported that two
children said that the program was too long. Although none of the interview questions explicitly
asked about children’s liking of the program, eight respondents made comments about their
students ‘‘loving’’ it or being excited about it. Similarly, nine respondents reported students’
parents making positive remarks about the program.
Regarding implementation, seven respondents did not report any difficulties incorporating
Headsprout Early Reading into their curriculum, one stated that the program began too late in
the school year (March), and one reported that the staff allocation (i.e., one teacher or teacher assist-
ant for 31 students) was insufficient to provide enough support for implementation. Five respon-
dents reported that they did not need to reduce the time allocated to current class activities to
accommodate the program in their schedule, and four reported reducing some time allocated to
noninstructional activities. All respondents reported that they would like to continue program
implementation in the future, although three respondents qualified this statement by noting the need
for increased resources such as staff and physical facilities and decreased demands on teacher’s time
(e.g., using the program three times per week instead of five times per week as in the present study).
Finally, four respondents had suggestions for improving Headsprout Early Reading: begin-
ning the program earlier in the school year; seating children in such way that celebrating their
290 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
progress in the program did not distract others; allocating more staff to program implementation;
and developing a readiness program to prepare even younger children for the program.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, researchers and educators have emphasized the importance of early interventions
aimed at preventing reading difficulties in the elementary grades, especially for children who are
considered at risk for reading difficulties (Connor et al., 2006; Lonigan et al., 2004; Wasik et al.,
2006). This study examined the impact of a computer-based reading program, Headsprout Early
Reading, on the early reading skills and oral language of at-risk preschool children randomly
assigned to such program or to a control condition. The results suggest that Headsprout Early
Reading can be effective in increasing the early reading and oral language skills of preschool
children who may be at risk for future reading difficulties.
Reading Skills
The significant gains made by children using Headsprout Early Reading in this study replicate
and extend the data obtained by Layng and colleagues (2003, 2004b), who found important gains
in kindergarteners’ and first graders’ reading ability after instruction with Headsprout Early Read-
ing. The results of this study provide additional evidence of effectiveness with preschool children
at risk for future reading difficulties. All children started the study with mean reading quotients
more than one standard deviation below average. Mean reading quotients of children who used
Headsprout Early Reading increased to closely approximate average performance (see Reid et al.,
2001), yet the gain in mean reading quotients for the control group was not significant.
An examination of the instructional components, skills, and strategies taught in Headsprout
Early Reading suggests a tentative explanation for the effects obtained in this study. Each lesson
of Headsprout Early Reading is structured so that children must master each learning objective
before advancing in the instructional sequence, with the program branching to personalized prac-
tice and corrections dependent on individual error patterns (Layng et al., 2004b). Thus, the
amount of practice accommodates each child’s performance yet ensures that the learning objec-
tives are met. It should be noted that some of the skills measured by the TERA-3 are not
addressed in the first 40 episodes of the program that comprised the intervention, particularly
naming printed letters, counting syllables, and understanding capitalization. Because the
program focuses more heavily on decoding strategies, the relative lack of emphasis on some
of those other skills may have detracted from the posttest reading scores.
Oral Language Skills
Although all children started with mean language quotients more than one standard deviation
below average, those who used Headsprout Early Reading scored within the average range in
the TOLD-P:3 after the intervention (see Newcomer & Hammill, 1997). Children in the control
condition made statistically significant, but not educationally significant, gains, as their mean
quotient stayed more than one standard deviation below average.
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 291
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
The contribution of oral language development to reading performance has been widely
documented (e.g., Adams, 1990; Beron & Farkas, 2004; Clay, 2001; Dickinson & Snow,
1987; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Nation & Snowling, 2004; Roth, Speece, & Cooper, 2002).
The other side of the relation (the contribution of early reading to oral language development),
however, has received less attention, although some investigators have suggested that language
and literacy develop in a reciprocal and interactive manner during the preschool years (e.g., Blok
et al., 2002; Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994), and some literacy interventions have had positive effects
on the expressive vocabulary and oral language skills of preschool children (e.g., Whitehurst
et al., 1994).
The interrelation between oral and reading skills in young children was visible in this study:
After receiving instruction in reading, children in the intervention group had higher scores in oral
language than children in the control group, and there was a positive correlation between gains in
reading skills and gains in oral language skills. The pervasiveness of oral language interactions
throughout Headsprout Early Reading may be responsible for the increase in oral language skills
of children in the experimental condition. Although Headsprout Early Reading focuses on teach-
ing basic reading skills, oral language is modeled throughout the program in the directions, feed-
back, and stories; new vocabulary is introduced in the context of stories; and children are
continually required to speak out loud while interacting with the program. Oral responding is
immediately followed by confirmatory or corrective feedback based on the child’s selection of
a correct response among spoken alternatives. For example, children are encouraged to ‘‘say
[a sound or word] out loud,’’ then listen to three characters saying either the target sound or word
or different sounds or words, and finally click on the character who ‘‘said it like you did’’ (greater
detail about the feedback given by the program can be found in Layng et al., 2004b). This ten-
tative causal relation, however, needs further exploration before any assertion can be made as
to which elements of Headsprout Early Reading led to the gains in oral language skills.
Because oral language begins to influence future reading success as early as age three
(National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research
Network, 2005), interventions that target the oral language development of young children
should be explored further. This study suggests that Headsprout Early Reading can be effective
at improving the oral language skills of preschool children. Further research, however, is needed
to investigate which specific oral language skills improve as a result of reading instruction as that
would help create a more complete understanding of the interrelation between oral language and
early reading skills.
Although the results of this study are promising, the question of whether gains are maintained
over time and allow children to benefit more fully from the instruction that they will encounter at
later points in their reading curricula remains open for future investigation. Additionally, future
research should determine how different subgroups respond to Headsprout Early Reading. For
example, a significant portion of the participants in this study were English language learners,
for whom literacy development has been found to differ from that of native English speakers
(Leseux & Siegel, 2003). It was beyond the scope of this study to determine if these two
subgroups differed in their early reading and oral language gains because of their native language,
but more investigation is needed to contribute to the growing literature of literacy acquisition in
English language learners. Some preliteracy skills, such as print and phonemic awareness,
are transferred across languages; others may need relearning in the second language
(see for example Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003). Basal measures of these transferable and
292 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
nontransferable preliteracy skills would enrich any interpretation of results from literacy
programs used with English language learners.
As with any emerging evidence base, preliminary conclusions about the effects of an inter-
vention are strengthened or weakened by the amount and rigor of available evidence. In this
study, the effects of the intervention on early reading and oral language skills are moderated
by the possibility that the gains made by the experimental group may be a function of receiving
additional instruction in early reading and oral language (independent of the program used), in
contrast with a control group that did not receive the additional instruction. As such, this inves-
tigation should be considered as initial evidence of effect, within a continuum of effect strength
as determined by the alternative condition (American Psychological Association, 2002).
In addition, there are two considerations that suggest that the specific program used had an
important effect on the children’s early reading and oral language skills. First, the experimental
group’s gains in both the TERA-3 and TOLD-P:3 were substantive enough to fall within separate
scoring categories from pretest to posttest (see Newcomer & Hammill, 1997; Reid et al., 2001), a
gain unlikely to be achieved by additional instruction alone. Second, Headsprout Early Reading
was selected as the experimental program because of its documented effectiveness in previous
studies (e.g., Layng et al., 2003, 2004a). The inclusion of a prevalidated program was part of this
study’s requirements, although additional studies with multiple control conditions (including
other literacy-oriented programs) would help clarify how much of the gains can be attributed
to Headsprout Early Reading as opposed to mere time spent on language-related activities.
Teachers’ Perceptions
Teachers are willing to adopt changes in their classroom routines that they find manageable and
meaningful (Willis & Mehlinger, 1996). In this study, the teachers interviewed asserted that the
program was effective at reinforcing the reading skills and oral language skills of their students,
and most teachers were able to accommodate the program in their classroom routine without
significant disruption. Another issue affecting adoption of instructional programs is the time
and effort necessary for implementation. As Crevola and Hill (1998) noted, preschool teachers
face multiple time and task demands. The teachers who participated in this study indicated that
time constraints and staff shortages were likely to impact their ability to implement a new
instructional program as prescribed. It must be noted, however, that these teachers implemented
both programs in this study with adequate integrity. Therefore, although teachers reported mul-
tiple time constraints, they were able to accommodate the program within their schedules and
considered the program to be a valuable tool (see the following for a more extended discussion).
The degree to which students are motivated by computer-based programs is also an important
incentive for teacher use and support of those programs (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods,
1999). The teachers involved in the implementation of Headsprout Early Reading indicated that
their students showed interest in and excitement about the program. One teacher, however, com-
mented that some students ‘‘burned out.’’ Although Headsprout Early Reading was motivation-
ally successful with the majority of children, future studies should assess the developmental stage
at which the program requirements begin to overlap significantly with children’s abilities and
interests. Developmental profiles of children who struggle with the program may be a starting
point in this endeavor, although other variables known to affect literacy development, such as
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 293
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
the language and literacy environment at home, should be considered, as well (see Adams, 1990;
Hart & Risley, 1995). Finally, the sample of teachers and teacher assistants in this study was
small, and these data provide only exploratory descriptions of what educators value in these
instructional programs. Thus, the data about teachers’ perceptions of the program must be inter-
preted with caution and only as a preliminary approach to future, rigorous studies about the
relation between teachers’ perceptions of the program, implementation integrity, and learning
outcomes. Because educators’ support is essential for successful program implementation, future
investigations should expand on the variables that affect such support.
Implementation Integrity
The integrity of implementation for both the experimental and control conditions was relatively
high, although it varied substantially within conditions. Two aspects of the implementation
integrity measurement may have contributed to this variability. First, all items in the implemen-
tation integrity checklists had the same weight toward the overall integrity score; therefore, tea-
chers may have overlooked items that were perceived as less critical in ensuring the program’s
instructional outcomes. Second, items were scored as either present or absent; if a teacher
satisfied an item for some students but not for others, that item was marked as being absent, thus
lowering the overall implementation integrity score.
Despite the variation in implementation integrity, children had significant gains in oral lan-
guage and reading skills after using Headsprout Early Reading. This suggests that the program
can tolerate less than perfect implementation and still deliver meaningful instructional results.
Given the multiple demands that teachers face, it is important that instructional programs pro-
duce the educational outcomes that they offer even if the implementation integrity has some
inadequacies. Instructional programs should be clear in the nature and extent of the demands
they place on teachers, yet allow for some flexibility. Further investigation is needed to deter-
mine which implementation requirements are crucial to the program’s success and which
requirements result in only marginal gains, if any.
In this study, teachers and assistants were provided with feedback about implementation
integrity after each session for both the experimental and control groups. In addition, inter-
vention by the first author did occur at times when a teacher or assistant was not providing
adequate support; positive feedback was also provided after the session when support was
adequate. Because teachers were provided with implementation checklists, observed during
the sessions, and given feedback on their performance, the implementation integrity found in
the present study may not reflect implementation in a more natural context where teachers do
not receive systematic feedback about their implementation and do not have an observer asses-
sing their implementation integrity. Implementation integrity should be assessed in the future in
less conspicuous ways, such as videotaping the sessions for later scoring (see O’Donnell, 2008).
Educational Implications and Future Directions
Programs that help develop literacy and oral language skills effectively and efficaciously should
receive special attention because many at-risk preschool children will need supplementary
instruction to catch up with their peers (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Hart & Risley, 1995).
294 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Bereiter and Engelmann noted that regular instruction seldom suffices to bridge the gap between
at-risk children and their peers, and the results of this study seem to confirm that. Even though
all children in the study received literacy instruction in the classroom, children in the control
group did not make significant gains in their early reading skills. Children who are at risk need
concentrated instruction that brings their skills beyond the level afforded by regular instruction if
they are to catch up with more advantaged peers. Furthermore, a systematic and reliable method
of delivering this supplementary instruction is needed. Even in high-quality preschool settings,
there is large variability between and within classrooms in the opportunities that children have
for participating in language and literacy experiences (Connor et al., 2006). Programs that
provide instruction systematically and that adapt to children’s needs may be useful at ensuring
that all children receive the intended instruction.
In evaluating early reading and language programs, researchers should consider all the factors
that can impact achievement, such as literacy and language experiences received in the home,
classroom, or community. In future investigations, collecting data on literacy activities in the
home should provide useful information to parents and teachers seeking to strengthen and
support joint instructional efforts.
Finally, the logistic aspects of adequate program implementation should be considered. In this
study, teachers were receptive to new teaching methods and programs and, if shown their
positive effects on learning, were willing to incorporate these programs into their instructional
routines. Even so, teachers and assistants who work with at-risk children face time constraints
and multiple demands. Proper administrative and technical support is imperative for any
implementation that seeks success in the long term.
Given the importance of early reading and oral language skills on future academic perform-
ance, research on programs designed to support these skills needs to continue. The development
and implementation of effective programs for at-risk preschool children can help close the
achievement gap and assist at-risk children in gaining the skills they need to be successful in
their formal education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this article are based on a dissertation submitted by the first author to the University
of South Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alloway, N. (1994). Young children’s preferred option and efficiency of use of input devices. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education,27, 104–110.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A
review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education,23, 300–316.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Criteria for evaluating treatment guidelines. American Psychologist,57,
1052–1059.
Bereiter, C., & Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 295
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Beron, K. J., & Farkas, G. (2004). Oral language and reading success: A structural equation modeling approach.
Structural Equation Modeling,11, 110–131.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning
reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research,72, 101–130.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly,2, 5–142.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., & Tarver, S. (2004). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Castellani, J., & Jeffs, T. (2001). Emerging reading and writing strategies using technology. Teaching Exceptional
Children,33, 60–67.
Clay, M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and children’s emergent literacy growth.
Journal of Educational Psychology,98, 665–689.
Crevola, C. A., & Hill, P. W. (1998). Evaluation of a whole-school approach to prevention and intervention in early
literacy. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,3, 133–158.
Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among pre-reading and oral language skills in kindergartners
from two social classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,2, 1–25.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning language with literacy: Young children learning at home and
school. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Durkin, D. (1975). A six-year study of children who learned to read in school at the age of four. Reading Research
Quarterly,10, 9–61.
Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of
technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,32, 54–71.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2004). FCRR reports. Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and schools. New York, NY:
Cambridge.
Hutinger, P., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2005). Disseminating and replicating an effective emerging literacy
technology curriculum: A final report. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois University, Center for Best Practices in Early
Childhood.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology,80, 437–447.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Written language awareness in preschool children from low-income households: A
descriptive analysis. Communication Disorders Quarterly,22, 123–134.
Justice, L. M., Invernizzi, M., Geller, K., Sullivan, A. K., & Welsch, J. (2005). Descriptive-developmental performance
of at-risk preschoolers on early literacy tasks. Reading Psychology,26, 1–25.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33,
159–174.
Layng, J., Johnson, K., Twyman, J. S., Ford, V., Layng, M. P., Gilbert, M., & Stikeleather, G. (2003). U.S. Patent
No. 7,152,034. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Layng, J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2003). Headsprout Early Reading: Reliably teaching children to read.
Behavioral Technology Today,3, 7–20.
Layng, J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004a). Engineering discovery learning: The contingency adduction of
some precursors of textual responding in a beginning reading program. Analysis of Verbal Behavior,20, 99–109.
Layng, J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004b). Selected for success: How Headsprout Reading Basics teaches
children to read. In D. J. Moran & R. Malott (Eds.), Evidence-based education methods (pp. 171–197). St. Louis,
MO: Elsevier Science=Academic Press.
Leseux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language.
Developmental Psychology,39, 1005–1019.
296 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking English-
language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 482–494.
Liu, M. (1996). An exploratory study of how pre-kindergarten children use the interactive multimedia technology:
Implications for multimedia software design. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education,7, 71–92.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in
preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,36, 596–613.
Lonigan, C. J., McDowell, K. D., & Phillips, B. M. (2004). Standardized assessments of children’s emergent
literacy skills. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 525–550). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with
literacy problems: a critical review. Elementary School Journal,101, 273–301.
Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for
advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading,29, 162–172.
Makin, L. (2003). Creating positive literacy learning environments in early childhood. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh
(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 327–337). London: Sage.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development
of reading. Journal of Research in Reading,27, 342–356.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching chil-
dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to
reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology,41, 428–442.
Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. (1997). Examiner’s manual: Test of language development primary (3rd ed.). Austin,
TX: Pro-ed.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to out-
comes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research,78, 33–84.
Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford.
Reid, K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (2001). TERA-3 Examiner’s Manual (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Reitsma, P., & Wesseling, R. (1998). Effects of computer-assisted training of blending skills in kindergarten. Scientific
Studies of Reading,2, 301–320.
Revelle, G. L., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). Effects of practice and input device used on young children’s computer
control. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education,2, 33–41.
Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral language and
early reading. Journal of Educational Research,95, 259–272.
Ruddell, R. B., & Ruddell, M. R. (1994). Language acquisition and literacy processes. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell,
& H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 4, pp. 83–103). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association, Inc.
Silverman, M. (n.d.). Millie’s Math House. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~jmorris/millie.html
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,26, 32–71.
Stipek, D. J., & Ryan, R. H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to go.
Developmental Psychology,33, 711–723.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longi-
tudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology,38, 934–947.
Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Torgesen, J. K. (1999). Phonologically based reading disabilities: Toward a coherent theory of one kind of learning
disability. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swearling (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 231–262).
New Haven, CT: Westview Press.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology,40, 7–26.
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading
Research Quarterly,23, 134–158.
READING AND ORAL LANGUAGE IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 297
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). 2004 federal poverty guidelines. Retrieved from http://
www.aspe.hhs.gov/poverty.shtml
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for
reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 508–528.
Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on early language
production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development,65, 606–621.
Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start
children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,98, 63–74.
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an
emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology,86, 542–555.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1988). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development,69, 848–872.
Willis, J. W., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, &
E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 978–1029). New York: Simon & Schuster.
APPENDIX: IMPLEMENTATION INTEGRITY CHECKLISTS
Headsprout Early Reading Present Absent
Review performance data and reset to previous episode or use cards for review
if needed
Confirm that learners stay in program
Praise oral responding
Praise episode completion
Respond to help requests by re-directing learners to program
Have learners read story when indicated by program
Conduct benchmark assessments
Put headset cord behind learner’s head
Adjust volume if needed
Provide stickers for episode completion
Millie’s Math House Present Absent
Review skill checklist and tell learners skill they will work on today
Confirm that learners stay in program
Model new skill for learners if they do not complete it independently
Praise and document independent completion of skills in ‘question and answer’
mode
Praise practice in ‘explore’ mode
Encourage review of previously taught skills when finished with today’s skill
Put headset cord behind learner’s head
Adjust volume if needed
Report use or non-use of in-class activities
Provide stickers for lesson completion
298 HUFFSTETTER ET AL.
Downloaded By: [Huffstetter, Mary] At: 20:56 10 January 2011
