This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 03 November 2014, At: 18:13Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Literacy Training for Early ChildhoodProviders: Changes in Knowledge,Beliefs, and Instructional PracticesKathleen Armstrong a , Dale Lynn Cusumano a , Melissa Todd a &Rachel Cohen aa University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida, USAPublished online: 10 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: Kathleen Armstrong , Dale Lynn Cusumano , Melissa Todd & Rachel Cohen(2008) Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers: Changes in Knowledge, Beliefs, andInstructional Practices, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29:4, 297-308, DOI:10.1080/10901020802470085

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020802470085

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

297

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29:297–308, 2008Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901020802470085

UJEC1090-10271745-5642Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 2008: pp. 1–29Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers: Changes in Knowledge, Beliefs,

and Instructional Practices

Literacy Training for Early Childhood ProvidersK. Armstrong et al. KATHLEEN ARMSTRONG, DALE LYNN CUSUMANO, MELISSA TODD, AND RACHEL COHEN

University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

While it is clear that reading is critical to children’s success throughout schooling andreading instruction research has dramatically increased over the past 2 decades, fewearly childhood providers have the necessary knowledge, skills and/or confidence toeffectively implement evidence-based, emergent literacy strategies in their settings.This article explores the impact of the Early Learning Opportunities (ELO) initiativethat provided funding to train early childhood providers to utilize the HeadsUp! Reading(HUR) curriculum in their settings. Noteworthy in this initiative was the inclusion of acoaching component designed to increase participants’ ability to generalize HURinstructional practices into their classroom. Also important here was the opportunityto evaluate teaching outcomes. Results from this study indicate that all participantsbenefited from their involvement in the professional development activities, and thatthose who received coaching had an advantage with respect to growth in knowledge,skills, and confidence in implementing the new strategies into their classrooms.Implications for professional development activities suggest that coaching efforts tosupport implementation of newly acquired skills in the classroom may improveteacher performance.

Literacy skill acquisition has received much attention and focus during recent years asdemonstrated in both research (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000; Neuman, Copple, &Bredekamp, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and national legislation (No Child LeftBehind, 2001). This emphasis is driven by research indicating that children who lack earlyreading skills when they enter kindergarten are three to four times more likely not to grad-uate from high school (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Importantly, reading is high-lighted as a critical skill that portends a child’s future success in school and later in life(National Center for Education Statistics, 2000) and thus deserves attention early in itsdevelopmental course.

Unfortunately, many children are not exposed to literacy-related activities in theirhomes or child care center settings (Neuman et al., 2000; Snow, 1991; Snow et al.,1998). Current research, however, shows that experiences such as listening to stories

Received 19 November 2007; accepted 4 January 2008.This study was made possible by Grant 90100068101 from the Department of Health

and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. Opinions offered here do not neces-sarily reflect the policy of the Department of Health and Human Services Administration and no offi-cial endorsement by the Department should be inferred. The authors wish to thank Janet Chapman andthe Pinellas County Early Learning Coalition for their support towards the preparation of this article.

Address correspondence to Kathleen Armstrong, Department of Pediatrics, University of SouthFlorida, 13101 N. Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612. E-mail: karmstro@health.usf.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

298 K. Armstrong et al.

(Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Wells, 1985), being asked to think about thestories they hear (Karweit & Waski, 1996), being exposed to unfamiliar vocabulary(Snow, 1991), and being guided in letter identification and writing tasks (Clay, 1991;Stanovich & West, 1989; Teale, 1984) are critical supports to the acquisition of early liter-acy skills. However, there are relatively few studies that focus on preparing early child-hood educators to infuse these literacy-based activities into their settings (Neuman et al).

Research on skills transfer among professionals in fields such as education, athlet-ics, or management demonstrates the troubling finding that generalization of newlyacquired skills is often limited. Joyce and Showers (2002) offer the grim statistic thatonly 10% of participants in professional development activities retain knowledge fol-lowing a lecture-based course and that little or no transfer of learning transfers into therespective work environments. However, research by Joyce and Showers’ (1982, 2002)and others (Chan & Latham, 2004) demonstrates that with the addition of a coach as anexternal support who helps professionals bridge the gaps between skill acquisition andimplementation has been suggested and used as a means to increase generalizationretention increases to an effect size of 1.42 in 90% among participants (Joyce &Showers, 1982).

The Study

This article focuses on the impact of coaching designed to support professional developmentactivities for early childhood educators’ efforts to infuse emergent literacy strategies intotheir settings. Specifically, we discuss the impact that implementation of the Early LearningOpportunities (ELO) grant may have had on early childhood educators and their LiteracyCoaches’ skills, beliefs, and instructional practices.

In the face of guidelines endorsed by the National Reading Panel (2001) and researchsuch as that by Snow et al. (1998), local schools and school districts have been spurredto reshape their literacy education practices. In Pinellas County, Florida, the PinellasCounty Readiness Coalition adopted emergent literacy as its primary mission. This mis-sion was highlighted in the county’s implementation of the ELO grant. It was supportedby the collaborative efforts of agencies such as Coordinated Child Care of PinellasCounty, Directions for Mental Health, Pinellas County Childcare Licensing Board, and theUniversity of South Florida. The ELO funded development of a professional developmentprogram designed to enhance early childhood educators’ repertoire of evidence-basedpractices for building early literacy skills among preschool children.

Central to the ELO grant was the use of the research-based literacy curriculum, HeadsUp!Reading (National Head Start Association [NHSA], n.d.), which was offered as a collegelevel course at St. Petersburg College in Pinellas County, Florida in the spring and sum-mer 2004 semesters. The HUR curriculum is developed around the core concepts of early liter-acy development endorsed by early childhood research (e.g., Bowman, Donovan, & Burns,2000; Burns, Snow, & Griffin, 1999). The curriculum describes learning to read as a gradualprocess that begins moments after birth and continues well into the primary years. Implicithere is the understanding that the development of skills that are precursors to reading suchas phonological awareness and phonemic awareness support later oral reading and thatdelays in any of these precursor skills can result in reading difficulties in later years.Hence, there is an emphasis in the HUR curriculum on instruction and environmentalfactors. The HUR curriculum is structured to emphasize: Curriculum, Assessment (whichis presented as an avenue to shape and drive instruction), Playing, Talking, Reading, Writing,and Learning the Code (NHSA).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers 299

HeadsUp! Reading is a 15-week, satellite distance learning curriculum for earlychildhood educators. Each HUR class began with participants watching a satellite feedthat included nationally recognized researchers talking about aspects of learning and theirefforts to implement research-based strategies in real classroom settings. Next, participantsdiscussed the particular topic presented in the session and focused on implementation.Participants then completed action plans describing their intentions for using the strategiespresented.

A second feature of the ELO grant was the provision of a Literacy Coach (LC) to allparticipants: half in the spring and summer cohorts; the other half during either the fall of2004 or winter of 2005. The LC sessions consisted of hour-long, one-to-one interactionwith participants during interactions with children. There were seven LC sessions in thespring and 4.5 in the summer. All Literacy Coaches had at least 5 years of experienceworking in early childhood education settings. All were trained in the Early Literacy andLearning Model (ELLM) of coaching, which employs observation, feedback, and modelingactivities (Fountain, Cosgrove, Wiles, Wood, & Senterfitt, 2001). Literacy Coachesattended all HUR class meetings.

A third feature of the HUR course was provision of numerous resources such asbooks for classroom libraries, props for dramatic play and story telling, and magnetic alphabetletters, as well as “take home” backpacks for students to bring home. The backpacks werefilled with books, writing materials, and parent handouts that emphasized the importanceof early literacy development.

A program evaluation component was a third major part of the ELO grant. The evalu-ation component was designed to investigate the integrity, efficiency, and efficacy of theELO implementation. Observation tools were used to provide data on both classroomenvironment and student–participant interactions. Other measures, such as surveys andfocus groups administered before, during, and after the course, were designed to determinethe extent of participants’ growing investment in and knowledge of the process of gainingand implementing new instructional strategies. Child literacy growth was also monitored.

This article focuses on participants’ acquisition of knowledge, instructional skillsand development, beliefs about the endorsed instructional practices, and reactions to theirparticipation in the initiative.

Method

Participants

Seventy-six early childhood educators participated in the spring (n = 29) and summer (n = 47)cohorts. Nineteen early childhood educators also served as a control group. The controlgroup was created during the spring semester of the ELO grant implementation. Controlgroup participants did not partake in any ELO-related activities or receive any literacyresources or support during that time. In exchange for their participation in the controlgroup, these early childhood educators were offered the opportunity to participate in thesummer cohort of the ELO grant.

All but two participants in the spring and summer cohorts were female. All wereexperienced early childhood educators: participants in the spring averaged 10.69 years ofexperience and 8.53 years of experience in the summer group. All had high school diplomas.Forty-two percent of spring participants and 65% of summer also indicated some level ofpostsecondary educational experiences. Participants were employed at Head Start sites(23% of the spring cohort and 6% of the summer cohort), privately run sites (68% of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

300 K. Armstrong et al.

spring cohort and 41% of the summer cohort), family home day care sites (0% ofthe spring cohort and 43% of the summer cohort), and centers that espoused a religiousaffiliation (9% of the spring cohort and10% of the summer cohort).

Evaluation Measures

Participants’ knowledge. One avenue for evaluating the impact that participation in theELO grant had on early childhood educators was to examine their levels of knowledgebefore and after completion of the HUR course. To accomplish this task, an Early LiteracyInstruction Knowledge survey was administered to all participants. This survey was com-prised of nine multiple choice and six true and false items that asked respondents to defineliteracy terms as well as research-based applications of these strategies in early childhoodsettings. The knowledge survey was administered during the first and last HUR classes toall participating participants. All items were weighted equally; thus, a total of 19 pointswere possible.

Participants’ Beliefs About Implementing Literacy. The Beliefs about ImplementingLiteracy Skills Scale (BAILSS) was developed to assess participants’ attitudes towardsthe importance, competence, and use of literacy skills in their classrooms and family childcare centers. The BAILSS is an 84-item self-rating scale for participants in the HURcourse. Each item includes a literacy skill as the stem and a three-point Likert scale ratingfor importance, competence, and use of each skill. The ratings for importance or feelingstoward skill (affect), competence or feelings about ability to use skill (cognition), and useof skill (behavior) were derived from Katz’s (1960) three components of attitude: affect,cognition, and behavior. (See Table 1 for a sample item.) The literacy skills were takendirectly from the HUR curriculum weekly suggestions for implementing lessons.

Table 1BAILSS Sample Items

Sample Items

1. Read familiar stories to children.

a. I think this is important. No Somewhat Yesb. I feel I am able (have the skills) to do this. No Somewhat Yesc. I do this. Not yet Sometimes Often

2. Provide writing materials (small tablets, pencils, markers, paper, clipboards, dry erase boards, small chalk) in areas or for activities that do not traditionally include writing (e.g., playing house, kitchen, doll house).

a. I think this is important. No Somewhat Yesb. I feel I am able (have the skills) to do this. No Somewhat Yesc. I do this. Not yet Sometimes Often

3. Observe what children do with the writing materials (tablets, pencils, markers, paper, clipboards, dry erase boards, chalk) in different areas or during activities.

a. I think this is important. No Somewhat Yesb. I feel I am able (have the skills) to do this. No Somewhat Yesc. I do this. Not yet Sometimes Often

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers 301

The BAILSS was administered to the summer cohort of participants prior to the firstlesson and after the last lesson of the HUR course. The prescores were compared to thepostscores and the coaching group’s scores were compared to the no-coaching group’sscores. Two pints were awarded to “yes” or “often”; one point to “somewhat” or “some-times”; and zero points to “no” or “not yet”. A composite score for each respondent wasderived as well as a subscale score for importance, competence, and use. Cronbach’s alphawas conducted on time-one data to determine the internal consistency of each scale. TheCronbach’s alpha for the composite scale was .948, for Importance was .805, for Compe-tence was .944, and for Use was .909. Two items from the Importance (i.e., 9a and18a)and two items from the Use scale (i.e., 2c and 3c) had a variance of zero and were deleted.The total possible points for the remaining 80 items were 160: 52 for Importance and Useand 56 for Competence.

Environmental Changes and Skill Implementation. The Early Literacy Observation Check-list (ELOC) was used to assess literacy-related environmental factors as well as participant–student interaction variables related to literacy (Justice, 2002). The ELOC is comprisedof four subscales including, (1) Storybook Reading, (2) Classroom Library, (3) WritingCenter, and (4) Overall Print Environment and requires varying methods of responding(e.g., open-ended, yes/no, and multichoice). For the purposes of the grant, modificationsto the ELOC were made. These modifications included reformatting, the addition of twoitems (i.e., “Are printed materials displayed prominently in the early learning environment?”and “Are posters and signs displayed at eye level?”), and the extension of the ratingchoices for two existing items. These changes were based on feedback provided by literacycoaches and instructors facilitating the HUR curriculum.

In terms of scoring, each item was given a weight along a 0 to 1 range in .25increments depending on the response format. Scores obtained included the four afore-mentioned sections in addition to an Overall Literacy Environment Score, i.e., the sum ofall sections. Higher scores reflect a literacy-rich child care environment. For the purposesof the grant, only ELOC Total scores were used to assess the extent to which child careproviders incorporated the knowledge and skills gained from the HUR curriculum andcoaching sessions into their classroom environment. Interrater reliability between observerswas obtained at a level of .85 or above prior to the utilization of the instrument. To date,there have been no attempts to obtain psychometric properties, as Justice’s (2002) originalintent of the measure was to provide a “functional snapshot” of the environment.

Participants’ Responses to ELO Participation. Following Krueger (1994), who describesfocus groups as a forum to elicit perceptions, attitudes, and ideas of participants in asupportive atmosphere, we use focus groups to obtain feedback from participants whocompleted the HUR program.

Six focus groups of 10 to 12 participants each were convened immediately followingtheir last HUR class. Each was asked by trained facilitators to respond to a set of open-ended questions such as, “Describe how the class has affected you as a participant. Whathave you learned? What would you change?” For those who received coaching, questionsrelated to this component, such as, “In what ways was your coach helpful? What was atypical coaching session like?” were included.

The focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed in aniterative process to identify any comments or themes associated with the issues of interest.Four evaluation team members independently conducted the initial analyses of the transcripts,and condensed data to relevant issues based upon frequency and specificity of the direct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

302 K. Armstrong et al.

quotations (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The team met to discuss, clarify, and compare the identi-fied themes across the six focus groups to determine areas of commonality and divergence.

Results

As described above, data from multiple sources were examined to identify the impact ofthe ELO grant on the instructional practices of participating early childhood educators.First, findings from the examination of changes in participant knowledge are offered.Following these results, differences in participants’ beliefs receive attention. Changes ininstructional strategies and classroom environments also are addressed. To close thissection, qualitative information reflecting participants’ experiences of their participationin the ELO grant is provided.

Changes in Participant Knowledge. A 19-item, pre- and posttest survey of participants’gains in knowledge about early literacy skill acquisition and instructional strategies wasconducted. Mastery of the targeted course content was determined by a cutoff scoreof 80% of the posttest administration of the Early Literacy Instruction Knowledge Survey(15 out of 19 possible points). Pretest scores from the spring cohort of ELO participants indi-cated that none of the participants achieved 80% or higher, while 50% of the posttest partic-ipants achieved or surpassed the cutoff score (see Table 2). A repeated measures Analysis ofVariance was conducted to explore the significance of this difference, with results providingdocumentation that participants’ posttest scores (M = 13.67) were significantly higher thanpretest scores (M = 11.33), Wilks’ Lambda, F(1, 17) = 26.87, p < .0001. Figure 1 offers avisual of the relationship between pre- and posttest scores over time.

Participants’ Beliefs. A repeated measures Multivariate Analysis of Covariance(MANCOVA) was conducted to examine changes in participants’ beliefs about the impor-tance of implementing literacy-based strategies into their instructional practices. Coachingwas the covariate. Total scores on the pre- and post-BAILSS served as the dependent measure.See Table 3 for mean scores. Results indicated that there was a significant difference betweenthe total and subscale scores at Time 1 and Time 2 (Wilks Lambda, F (3, 43) = .34.40,p < .0001). Follow-up univariate tests were conducted on the total and subscale scores. Allwere significant. See Table 4 for results. These data indicate that there were significantdifferences between the total score and all the subscale scores between Time 1 and Time 2.There was no overall effect, however, for coaching (Wilks Lambda, F (3, 43) = .188, p = .904)nor was there a significant interaction for Time 1 and 2 by coaching (Wilks Lambda,F(3, 43) = 1.007, p = .399).

Table 2Mean Scores for Participants’ Literacy Knowledge Pre- and Posttest Survey

Means

N Pretest Posttest

Spring CohortHUR With Coaching 8 11.36 13.70HUR Without Coaching 10 10.78 13.63All Spring Cohort Participants 18 11.33 13.67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers 303

Figure 1. Changes in participants’ skills as measured by Early Literacy Knowledge survey meeting80% criterion.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Pretest Posttest

Lite

racy

Kno

wle

dge

Sur

vey

Sco

re

HUR With Coaching

HUR Without Coaching

Criterion Range

Table 3Means and SD for the Total and Subscales of the BAILSS

at Time One and Two

Time 1 Time 2

Mean SD Mean SD

Importance 48.7 (3.9) 51.16 (2.45)Competence 46.05 (10.6) 54.36 (2.85)Use 30.31 (10.7) 44.22 (6.30)Total 125.1 (20.76) 149.70 (9.46)

Note. These are the scores without items 9a, 18a, 2c, and 3c.

Table 4Univariate Follow-Up Tests for the BAILSS

df F p-value

Importance 1 72.39 0.000Competence 1 8.23 0.006Use 1 27.20 0.000Total 1 106.03 0.000

Note. The Greenhouse-Geiser estimate was used.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

304 K. Armstrong et al.

Environmental Changes and Skill Implementation. Changes in participants’ skills andclassroom environment were examined both before and after participation in the ELOgrant. In short, total scores on the Early Literacy Observation Checklist (ELOC) werecompared to a criterion upon which 80% of possible literacy-related characteristics on theELOC were present in the classrooms. Thus, ELOC Total scores of 33 or higher (out of apossible 41 points) served as indicators of successful transfer of skills and strategies. Datafrom the spring cohort of ELO participants were examined. Comparison of ELOC TotalTime 1 scores to this criterion were as follows: HUR with Coaching = 30.02, HUR withoutCoaching = 31.80, and Control = 27.25. Inspection of these outcomes indicates that nomean ELOC Total Time 1 scores met the criterion; however, at Time 2, mean scores fromboth ELO conditions fell within this range (HUR with Coaching = 33.77, HUR withoutCoaching = 34.20). In contrast, the mean ELOC Total Time 2 score from the control groupdid not meet this criterion, M = 30.45. Figure 2 depicts these scores over time. Percentagesof classrooms that met the criterion at Time 1 and 2 across conditions also are presentedin Table 5.

Figure 2. Changes in participants’ skills as measured by ELOC scores meeting 80% criterion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time 1 Time 2

ELO

C T

otal

Sco

re

HUR with Coaching

HUR Without Coaching

Control

Criterion Range

Table 5Percentage of Classrooms Meeting ELOC Total Score Criterion

Across Time By Conditions

Percentages Meeting Criterion

N Time 1 Time 2

HUR With Coaching 12 33% 73%HUR Without

Coaching10 40% 70%

Control Group 19 26% 32%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers 305

Participants’ experiences regarding participation. Qualitative information was obtainedduring Focus Groups conducted at the end of the HUR course content. From these sessions,participants’ reports about their participation in the grant were categorized by implemen-tation and impact. The implementation included the course components and coaching andwas organized by positive themes and areas for change. The themes are presented in Table 6and Table 7. For the positive themes related to the course, participants enjoyed thefocus on assessment, the sharing of ideas, the demonstration of skills. They wanted morespecific information for their classroom, less repetition of the course lectures, more problemsolving and discussion, and felt some books were difficult. They described many of thepositive impacts on their teaching:

Table 6Focus Group Themes: Implementation

Component Positive Themes Areas for Change

HUR! Course Topics Focus on assessment so participants can measurewhat children are doing

More individualized for their settings (e.g., family child care, infants, toddlers)

HUR! Course Materials Handouts with ideas on ways to implement material

Some books were difficult

HUR! Live Feed/Videos Classroom vignettes and demonstration

Less repetition of concepts and shorter lecture segments

Classroom Discussions Getting ideas from other participants

More problem solving on how to implement ideas in classroom

Coaching Resources from coaches Some felt they were being judged

Suggestions were helpful Group who did not receive coaching felt neglected

Liked when coach asked how she could help

Provided encouragement and accountability

Table 7Focus Group Themes: Impact on Participants and Students

Participants Students

Expanded literacy to other areas of classroom besides book area

Younger children are now doing what older children are doing

Teaching is more fun Children are more interested in reading and writing

Increased expectations of childrenMore confidenceMore knowledge of developmentally

appropriate literacy levels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

306 K. Armstrong et al.

I am a lot more confident with what I am doing.

I have a different level of understanding of why I am doing what I am doing.

I didn’t know how to get her [children] from here to there and this class hastaught me how to do it.

[In the past] . . . I would see some of my kids write their name and I wouldwant to tell them, no do it this way. I learned to leave them alone, that’s theway it’s supposed to go and they’ll just pick up on it.

Related to coaching, participants enjoyed the extra help, encouragement, and account-ability. Only one or two participants reported that their coach was judgmental and thosewithout a coach noted that they wanted one. Examples of the positive impact related tocoaching include:

She [coach] brought back the fun. If they look like they are playing, you knowthey are learning.

How can I help you? How can I help you? The key words.

It made me feel really important . . . that we are doing such an important jobthat we have coaches.

Many participants described the impact of the course on their ability to implementliteracy skills within their classrooms. They also described the impact on their students’literacy development.

[Describing what she liked] The excitement of books, literacy, their writingskills, name recognition, actually being able to formulate a lot of letters. Hav-ing those writing materials at all the centers. The kids really adapt to that and[are] really excited.

When they have free choice time, normally they just go to the housekeeping.[Now] they actually go to the books. They enjoy reading books now. They pickit up and ask you questions about the books.

I didn’t realize that even at a two year old level they could still grasp whatthree and four year olds would grasp and they picked up on it. In a week ortwo period, they were actually able to say and do things that three and fouryear olds were doing, and I was amazed.

I have one year olds whose language has just taken off since I started this[course]. They are counting to five . . . reciting their ABC’s . . . they are pick-ing up what I am doing with my older children . . . and they are getting it.

In summary, the participants reported that their involvement in this effort resulted inpositive changes within their classrooms and described their own growth and thechildren’s growth in literacy development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Literacy Training for Early Childhood Providers 307

Discussion

The importance of providing early literacy experiences in preschool settings is clear. Asresults show, children who begin school with those early literacy skills essential to becom-ing competent readers are more likely to be successful throughout school and life(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2002).However, implementation of these early literacy activities may be challenged due toteachers’ (and parents’) instructional skills, beliefs, and practices.

This study explored the notion of transfer of training that occurred following participationin a professional development initiative intended to increase early child care providers’skills at infusing early literacy strategies into their classrooms. A significant component inthis initiative was the inclusion of a coaching component that was provided to a subset ofthe participants to support their ability to implement the strategies.

Results indicate that all participants benefited from their involvement in the trainingactivities with respect to changes in knowledge beliefs, and attitudes, and improvementsin the literacy environment. While the participants who received coaching showed a slightadvantage in skill implementation as compared to those without coaching, both exceededthe control group. As a result of their involvement, participants reported a sense ofconfidence and competence, as well as an increased understanding of the importance ofinfusing grant-supported strategies into their classrooms.

While the contribution of the Literacy Coach was only moderately supported bythis study, future studies may better document the vital role played by coaching towardsfacilitating transfer of training into classroom and early childhood settings. Today’s teachersmust receive the latest knowledge regarding instructional practices, materials, and approachesto address reading, as well as develop the skills to implement instruction successfully toincreasingly diverse students. There remains a critical need to continue documentation ofthe effectiveness of professional development activities with respect to both teacher andstudent outcomes. The investment of future efforts to continue such training opportunitiesfor early childhood providers is supported by the crucial need to prepare young childrenfor success in school and prevent reading difficulties.

References

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating ourpreschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promotingchildren’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M., & Pellegrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading make for success inlearning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educa-tional Research, 65, 1–21.

Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 260–278.

Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Fountain, C., Cosgrove, M., Wiles, D., Wood, J., & Senterfitt, H. (2001). The early literacy and

learning model. Retrieved January 13, 2004, from http://www.unf.edu/dept/fiellm/pdfJoyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 4–10.Joyce B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Justice, L. M. (2002). The early literacy observation checklist. Charlottesville, VA: University of

Virginia MCGuffrey Reading Center. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.nde.state.ne.us.ECH/surveyEnglish.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

308 K. Armstrong et al.

Karweit, N., & Waski, B. (1996). The effects of story reading programs on literacy and languagedevelopment of disadvantaged pre-schoolers. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk,4, 319–348.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24,163–204.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). London:Sage.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.).London: Sage.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). The nation’s report card: Fourth grade reading.Retrieved October 13, 2008 from http://www.nces.ed.govprogramsquarterly

National Reading Panel. (2001). Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentallyappropriate practices for young children. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

National Head Start Association [NHSA]. n.d. The early years of HeadsUp! Reading: A report fromthe National Head Start Association. Alexandria, VA: National Head Start Association.Retrieved January 11, 2004, from http://www.huronline.org

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). H.R. 1, 107th Congress.Snow, C. E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in

development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 5–10.Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & P. Griffin. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading

Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to your children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman,

A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110–121). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Helping your child become a reader. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.Wells, G. (1985). The meaning makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14