Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study compared teacher’s preferences and implementation outcomes for two versions of a supplemental read-aloud curriculum that provides young children with vocabulary instruction and guides for teachers to ask open-ended questions and scaffold conversations. One curriculum was fully scripted and the other trained teachers to make structured adaptations. Kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers (n = 54) were randomly assigned to the Scripted or Adaptive condition. Teacher exit interviews indicated 87.76% preferred the more efficient “softly scripted” version over the adaptive version that required time for teachers to plan modifications. Teachers in both conditions perceived similar and positive implementation outcomes in terms of appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, and usability. For fidelity, we observed no group differences for adherence or dosage. Teachers’ baseline knowledge and skills for supporting language comprehension related to fidelity of implementation and their perceived appropriateness. These findings suggest that teachers with stronger initial competencies are better positioned to deliver curricular innovations.

Keywords

Child Development Early Childhood Elementary Schools Language Comprehension/Development Teacher Education/Development Teacher Research Experimental Design Observational Research

Highlights

There is debate about whether classroom curricula should be scripted or adaptive.

We asked teachers if they preferred a scripted or adaptive read-aloud curriculum.

The majority preferred a scripted version because it was easy to use and efficient.

Implementation outcomes were similar across the scripted and adaptive conditions.

Teachers with higher initial knowledge and skills had better implementation.

Introduction

Only 9% of Grade 4 students in the United States demonstrate advanced reasoning when reading academic texts (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Therefore, experts recommend prioritizing early oral language instruction that promotes higher-level language comprehension skills needed for later literacy success (Justice & Jiang, 2023; Kleeck, 2008). Yet, it takes considerable teacher competencies to facilitate the type of classroom discourse needed to improve students’ language comprehension skills (e.g., Crawford et al., 2013, 2021; Hadley et al., 2022), especially when students enter school with diverse home languages (Goldenberg, 2020). Many early language comprehension interventions use read-aloud curricula containing lesson guides and activities that contain multiple evidence-based practices (EBP) to support students’ language comprehension (Dowdall et al., 2019; Mol et al., 2009; Silverman et al., 2020).

Although extensive meta-analytic research shows read-alouds are effective for monolingual and bilingual children (e.g., Fitton et al., 2018; Dowdall et al., 2019; Mol et al., 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2007, 2015), it is not clear how to best support early childhood educators to implement these types of read-aloud curricula at scale. Most research to date trains teachers to use scripted read-aloud curricula to deliver lessons in ways that align with EBP and the core components of the program (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2024; Mashburn et al., 2016). However, a scripted approach may not help all teachers to build knowledge or internalize practices, and may weaken teachers’ professional expertise and ability to improve local fit (Parsons et al., 2018; Vaughn et al., 2022). Thus, some recent approaches to addressing these goals at scale support teachers to adapt lesson guides in ways that maintain fidelity to core components (e.g., Kim et al., 2017; Neuman et al., 2015, 2021). This study is an initial look at implementation outcomes when teachers were randomly assigned to use scripted or adaptive versions of a supplemental read-aloud curriculum. We also consider how teachers’ preferences for a scripted or adaptive curriculum and their baseline knowledge and skills relate to implementation outcomes.

Scripted and Adaptive Approaches to Curriculum Design

Read-alouds are an extensively studied practice that increases children’s language comprehension (e.g., Fitton et al., 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Multiple experimental studies of scripted read-aloud approaches show meaningful impacts on child outcomes (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2024; Neuman et al., 2021; Pentimonti et al., 2023; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2018). However, other read-aloud approaches effectively support child outcomes with more flexible approaches that suggest strategies and expect that adults will skillfully adapt strategies to the book and child context (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2007; Wasik & Hindman, 2020).

Looking more broadly than read-alouds, modern curricula often use lesson guides with scripted approaches (e.g., Assel et al., 2007; Nesbitt & Farran, 2021). We define “scripted curricula” as lesson guides or manuals that suggest the wording educators should use to deliver instruction. These curricula vary along a continuum from tightly scripted approaches that expect word-for-word adherence to scripts (e.g., Slavin & Madden, 2001), to softly scripted approaches that suggest wording but allow flexibility in the wording or phrasing of lesson delivery (e.g., Mashburn et al., 2016). Potential affordances of scripted curriculum approaches are: (a) minimizing demands on teachers’ time spent in lesson preparation; (b) supporting consistent, high-quality lesson delivery regardless of variability in individual teachers’ knowledge and experience, and (c) ensuring instruction that addresses requirements, priorities, and local learning standards (Cobanoglu et al., 2015; Lim et al., 2018).

However, there are potential problems with scripted curriculum approaches. First, when scripted approaches are scaled up, top-down leadership is usually required to ensure adequate adherence to the script and other aspects of fidelity of delivery (Pak et al., 2020). Second, even when leaders emphasize fidelity, teachers routinely make adaptations to curriculum pacing or to components perceived as not culturally or linguistically relevant, or to aspects not meeting their students’ learning needs (e.g., Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Parsons et al., 2018). Third, scripted curricula can lead to unintended consequences of teachers feeling like their knowledge and skills are undervalued or that their autonomy is limited because they are “not allowed to construct their own resources and have to ‘sneak stuff in’” (p. 8, Pak et al., 2020).

Thus, there are compelling rationales for alternative, adaptive curriculum approaches. Adaptive curriculum approaches may include suggested wording for lessons, but are distinct because they contain opportunities for teachers to modify lesson components. There are various possible affordances of adaptive curricula. First, adaptive curricula provide teachers with more autonomy to craft lessons in ways that acknowledge teachers’ competencies to support language comprehension and to differentiate instruction to meet particular student needs (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Kim et al., 2017; Parsons et al., 2018). Second, some adaptive curricula contain educative features designed to promote teacher learning by explaining to teachers the underlying principles, and by making teachers agents in the instructional design and enactment of EBP (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Neuman et al., 2021). Third, when implementing new curricula across a district or other large scales, cultivating adaptive curriculum cultures can improve instruction that aligns with local learning standards, improves fit and usability in local contexts, or supports creativity or collaboration amongst teachers and other educators (Pak et al., 2020). This study used a structured adaptations approach that gives teachers guidance on how to make productive adaptations to their read-alouds to improve tailoring to student needs and fit within the large instructional goals while maintaining fidelity to core EBP.

Potential problems of adaptations are dilution or drift from core components of the intervention that likely comes with an “inevitable ‘voltage drop’ in which its effectiveness falters relative to the original efficacy trials” that tested an intervention under optimal conditions (Lyon & Koerner, 2016, p. 181). However, interventions that proactively specify allowable adaptation strategies have the potential to move away from these traditional problems of program drift and attenuated impacts. Dynamic interventions can be adjusted to local settings and can harness ideas to improve relevance or optimize delivery of the EBP over time (Chambers et al., 2013). For example, a read-aloud curriculum that provides both fully scripted lessons as well as alternate forms that promote adaptations increased language outcomes for linguistically diverse Grade 1 students (Baker et al., 2020).

Previous Read-Aloud Research on Structured Adaptations

There are two relevant, prior studies in which researchers manipulated book reading interventions to understand the value of adaptive approaches. Neuman et al. (2021) examined the effects of a structured adaptation of the World of Words program on student outcomes in pre-K through Grade 1. Seventy-four classrooms were assigned to an adaptive or business-as-usual control condition (72 were randomly assigned within school and within grade level; two classrooms in schools with only one class per grade were assigned to the intervention). The read-aloud intervention’s training emphasized understanding the principles underlying core components (“non-negotiables” vs. “negotiables”) and how to make modifications to the script that were congruent with the program’s goals. The researchers framed this as a softly scripted approach and encouraged teachers to make modifications to the script to better meet their students’ learning needs. Coaches provided weekly sessions to model and support teachers in making adaptations congruent with the model. Teachers maintained good adherence to the core components of the intervention when delivering with this adaptive approach (M = 4.75, SD = 0.55 on 5-point scale). The adaptive intervention resulted in significantly higher target vocabulary performance for all grades and significant expressive language gains for the pre-K students, but not the older kindergarten and Grade 1 students.

The second study, conducted by Kim et al. (2017), compared adaptive versus non-adaptive conditions and used a program called READS for Summer Learning that includes classroom instruction as well as family engagement components designed to improve students’ reading comprehension and outside-of-school reading. Using a cluster randomized trial, 109 Grade 4 teachers and their students in 27 high-poverty schools were randomized to the Core READS group that used a standardized, scripted approach or to an Adaptive READS group that supported teachers to make structured adaptations to the classroom instruction, as well as the family engagement components. The six scripted classroom lessons included read-alouds of narrative and informational texts with explicit instruction on comprehension strategies (e.g., main idea predictions and checks). Researchers supported grade-level teams in the adaptive group in making modifications to the content and pacing, tailoring instruction to students’ needs and the local contexts. Adaptive teachers made productive modifications and implemented lessons with good adherence (83% of essential lesson elements observed). The adaptive approach resulted in significant reading comprehension benefits for elementary students (0.12 SD higher on average) compared to the students in the scripted group. Although the present study does not report student outcomes, these two prior studies suggest the promise of supporting teachers to make productive adaptations to literacy programs that include read-alouds. The current study makes an important contribution to this literature by examining teacher perspectives and competencies that may be important conditions for understanding conditions that promote productive curriculum adaptations.

Intervention Overview: DT Curriculum

The program we studied is called Developing Talkers (DT; Zucker et al., 2019). This is a supplemental read-aloud curriculum that includes multiple components to support young children’s language comprehension. Most of our DT research to date (Landry et al., 2021; Zucker et al., 2013, 2019, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c) has used scripted lesson guides and materials to ensure fidelity of implementation of EBP with the goals of (a) ensuring relative ease of use by both novice and expert level teachers; (b) limiting professional learning time (e.g., training, coaching) for busy teachers; and (c) narrowing variability of individual teacher factors that may influence impacts in initial randomized control trials. Teachers of linguistically diverse students in our past studies have reported high satisfaction with the scripted version of the DT curriculum (e.g., Zucker et al., 2019, 2021a). As we scaled-up this program in larger efficacy trials, however, we expected that scripted and adaptive approaches could support teachers differently. After completing a randomized trial of the scripted curriculum (Zucker et al., 2019), we continued supporting some teachers in adapting this approach to plan their own read-alouds using core components of DT. This led to the creation of the DT Adaptive version because we found these teachers were largely successful in planning their own vocabulary instruction components that followed the DT model and that teachers felt were tailored to their students’ vocabulary learning needs (Zucker et al., 2021). Given this promise, and anecdotal evidence that teachers wanted to expand the use of the program’s EBP to read-alouds of books they chose, this study set out to explore the extent to which teachers would prefer an adaptive curriculum and the potential benefits of implementing this more tailored version of the curriculum.

Situating Adaptive Curricula in User-Centered Design and Implementation Science

We addressed questions about how best to design read-aloud curricula for use at scale, using approaches that consider user preference and implementation outcomes. User-centered design approaches prioritize the needs and preferences of the end users when designing an innovation. A key principle within this approach is prioritizing user preference between alternative designs (Pommeranz et al., 2012). User-centered design approaches also consider how to best implement complex EBP in ways that balance structured protocols with the need for flexible adaptations (Lyon & Koerner, 2016). User-centered design approaches emphasize the importance of refinements to intervention approaches to match the end users’ preferences and needs to successfully implement the program (Rosinsky et al., 2022; Van Velsen et al., 2008). User-centered design of innovative curricula is necessary to ensure that EBP can be delivered in real-world conditions and to ensure that allowable adaptations improve fit in local contexts or are integrated into routine ways of working (e.g., Birken et al., 2020).

We also considered implementation science approaches that are explicitly designed to understand determinants of implementation of EBP at scale. We identified five implementation outcomes of relevance to this study of two versions of the DT intervention. First, appropriateness examines the perceived fit and compatibility to address the target issues (i.e., improving students’ language comprehension) in a particular setting (E. K. Proctor, 2020). For this study, we enrolled teachers in two early grade levels—kindergarten and Grade 1—who taught in English or bilingual (English/Spanish) instructional settings. Second, feasibility is the extent to which an innovation can be successfully carried out in a given setting (E. K. Proctor, 2020). This relates to the feasibility of implementing the DT innovation successfully given resources and other requirements in the school setting. Third, acceptability is the perception of users that the innovation is agreeable or palatable for their needs or in their school context (E. K. Proctor, 2020). We were interested in teachers’ perceived acceptance of each version of the DT curriculum. Fourth, usability assesses the extent to which the intervention can be effectively and efficiently used by the intended users (Lyon et al., 2021). In this study, usability refers to the extent to which teachers can readily use the Adaptive and Scripted versions of DT to deliver lessons with confidence that their approach is likely to improve students’ language comprehension and that it avoids errors (e.g., asking questions that are open-ended, but too narrowly focused on recalling less important aspects of the text.). Fifth, fidelity is the degree to which an innovation is delivered as intended by the program developers—including aspects such as adherence to the intervention protocol and the dosage or amount of the program that was actually delivered (E. K. Proctor, 2020). Although there is conceptual similarity between some of these constructs, they can be distinguished. For example, teachers may perceive a read-aloud intervention as an acceptable means of improving student language comprehension, but find that certain features, like a scripted protocol, are not appropriate; this may render it unacceptable to all teachers or to users who work in contexts that require tailoring to diverse student profiles. Alternatively, teachers could find an adaptive version of DT intervention to be appropriate, but they may not find it feasible to use due to time constraints or needed professional development (PD) sessions, and/or support to follow the lesson template effectively.

Past curriculum research in early childhood and elementary school has focused most on fidelity outcomes (e.g., Cobanoglu et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2016). For example, when scaling up a softly scripted language and literacy read-aloud program in 144 sites (n = 6,483 3- to 6-year-olds), fidelity of intervention exposure was a significant predictor of children’s outcomes (Bleses et al., 2018). Studies of other language and vocabulary curriculum supplements show that teachers with diverse backgrounds can implement with good fidelity, but that their baseline preparedness and skills for managing classrooms predicted the quality of implementation outcomes (B. M. Phillips et al., 2019). Increasingly, curriculum-based research considers teachers’ perceptions of the new resource and individual teacher factors that relate to their readiness to implement a new curriculum; however, further research is needed to understand how these factors should influence efforts to scale-up complex curricula that address multiple EBP (e.g., Bierman et al., 2013; Clayback et al., 2023; Thierry et al., 2022).

Current Study Rationale and Research Questions

As noted, this study examines kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers’ implementation outcomes when they were randomly assigned to use a scripted or adaptive version of DT, an early childhood, supplemental read-aloud curriculum. Because DT is designed to promote language development with linguistically diverse students, we recruited classrooms using mostly English instruction as well as bilingual, English–Spanish instruction. A primary reason we designed an adaptive version of DT was to support teachers in making modifications to better fit their students’ levels of language development within early childhood classrooms that increasingly serve students with diverse levels of vocabulary and home language backgrounds (Fumero et al., 2024; Goldenberg, 2020). The second reason for evaluating an adaptive version was that prior DT users want to be able to transfer the core EBP to any book they deem important to read-aloud (Zucker et al., 2021). Although this initial study does not report on teacher transfer to their own texts or child outcomes for linguistically diverse students, it represents an important earlier step in understanding user preferences and implementation outcomes when scripted and adaptive approaches are experimentally manipulated. We addressed a series of research questions (RQ):

How many teachers preferred the adaptive versus the scripted curriculum and did their randomly assigned condition match their preference?

What were the key determinants of teachers’ preferences for the scripted versus adaptive version and did this differ by classroom contexts (i.e., bilingual, grade)?

Did teachers randomly assigned conditions or their preferences for scripted or adaptive relate to their perceived differences in implementation outcomes of acceptability, usability, feasibility, and appropriateness?

To what extent did fidelity of implementation—adherence and dosage—differ across the scripted and adaptive conditions and did observed fidelity relate to teachers’ perceived implementation outcomes?

Did teacher knowledge and skill in using EBP at baseline relate to the implementation outcomes (acceptability, usability, feasibility, appropriateness, adherence, and dosage)?

Based on our earlier iterative design phases (Zucker et al., 2019), we expected that most teachers would prefer the scripted version due to perceived ease of implementation; however, we hypothesized that the adaptive version may be well received by teachers who wanted to build knowledge of EBP or by bilingual teachers who serve emergent bilinguals who are learning two languages and likely have diverse competencies in English (Zucker et al., 2021b). We operationalized this by examining a comprehensive set of determinants of teachers’ curriculum preferences and by examining relations with observations and teachers’ baseline competencies. If the adaptive version was well received by certain users, it would have implications for our intervention’s theory of change and for educators who also want to systematically scale-up read-aloud interventions. In past DT studies, we observed good average fidelity of implementation (Zucker et al., 2021c). So, this study asked if we observed similar DT fidelity levels previously observed (i.e., adherence M = 73%–91%; dosage M = 73%–97%) in the current two versions of DT. We planned this interim study midway through a larger randomized control trial to identify any potential major implementation barriers that could be addressed with minimal changes to the intervention training or coaching.

Method

Participants included 54 intervention teachers taking part in the first two cohorts of a larger, four cohort randomized control trial (RCT; Preregistration #7540.2v1 at Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies). Note that this study only contrasts the two intervention approaches of the ongoing RCT. Kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms were eligible for the study if they provided instruction in English or used a bilingual model that included time for mostly English language read-alouds. Classrooms were randomly assigned to one of two supplemental language curriculum conditions: Scripted DT or Adaptive DT. Randomization was conducted by the second to last author and blocked by school building, unless fewer than three classrooms were enrolled in a given school building. Randomization was also blocked by grade and language of instruction. The local Institutional Review Board (IRB, Study # HSC-MS-19-0527) monitored this study, which included teacher written consent. The first cohort took part in the 2021–2022 school year and the procedures were repeated for the second cohort in the 2022–2023 school year.

Sites and Participant Description

Participating schools were located in an urban area within the South Central region of the United States. This included kindergarten classrooms (n = 30; serving mostly 5-year-olds) and Grade 1 classrooms (n = 24; mostly 6-year-olds) in 34 schools. School types included mostly public school districts (n = 29 schools; 44 classrooms) with the exception of three public charter schools (seven classrooms) and three private schools (three classrooms). Most schools served children experiencing economic disadvantage. On average, across the 32 schools with available data (i.e., missing for two private schools), 91.14% of students in the participating schools were eligible for free or reduced price lunch (SD = 16.91; range = 16.19–99.48; National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). In terms of language of instruction, 39 teachers reported English as the only language of instruction, four reported mostly English instruction, and 11 used mostly Spanish. Most classrooms had only one adult in the classroom; however, five teachers reported having an instructional aide for parts of the day.

Across intervention conditions, 48 reported their gender as female (n = 25 in the scripted condition), four as male (n = 2 in scripted condition; two did not report). When asked their ethnicity, 21 teachers reported Hispanic or Latino (n = 10 in the scripted condition). When asked their race, 14 reported African American (n = 10 in the scripted condition), 24 reported White (n = 13 in the scripted condition), and 12 reported Other (n = 3 in the scripted condition; four did not report). For the highest level of education attained, 37 teachers reported a Bachelor’s degree (n = 20 in scripted condition), five had some postgraduate education (n = 3 in scripted condition), and seven held a Master’s degree (n = 3 in scripted condition; five were missing these data, but most of these schools required a minimum of Bachelor’s degree). The results of baseline equivalence tests indicate that the differences in demographic characteristics between the conditions are not statistically significant, suggesting comparable characteristics between conditions.

Intervention Description: Required and Optional Components

We examined two iterations of a read-aloud intervention that vary in adaptability features. The DT innovation uses interactive read-alouds of narrative and informational books to improve children’s language comprehension. Books are reread three times in a week to scaffold students from concrete thinking in the initial reading to abstract thinking in later read-alouds (Blewitt et al., 2009). The DT intervention is complex because it has multiple components; however, in our training we explain that only three core components are “required” because they are EBP with robust empirical evidence across accumulated research (Dowdall et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The other components we describe as “optional.”

The first required EBP in DT is explicit vocabulary instruction, which provides students with child-friendly definitions and repeated opportunities to learn these words in meaningful contexts of read-alouds and follow-up activities (Beck et al., 2013; Hadley et al., 2022). DT uses picture vocabulary cards to draw children’s attention to important vocabulary before read-alouds and elaborates on these words during and after reading. For classrooms that include emergent bilinguals, these students may need more exposure to new words or translations to link to home language (Carlo et al., 2004; Fumero et al., 2024; Silverman et al., 2020). Therefore, vocabulary cards are provided in English and Spanish for bilingual classrooms.

A second required EBP in DT is the use of open-ended questions that require students to construct more than a one-word answer to answer important questions about the text. When teachers ask simple questions that require only one-word or “yes/no” responses, this is a missed opportunity for young children to practice forming more elaborate responses (e.g., Deshmukh et al., 2019). DT poses an open-ended “guiding question” before each re-reading of a text and encourages teachers to ask several students to answer this question after reading. In addition to using an open-ended form, the content of this question should direct students’ attention to key elements of the text that require inferencing or more abstract thinking (e.g., Kleeck, 2008).

The third required EBP in DT is conversation scaffolding, which refers to language support strategies adults use to model mature language while also guiding children’s cognition by adding challenge if the topic is easy for the child to understand or by simplifying if the topic is challenging for the child (Deshmukh et al., 2022; Zucker et al., 2020). Scaffolds in DT are called “Strive-for-Five” conversation strategies that include follow-up questions, hints, explanations, and models to support the child’s language and text comprehension (Cabell & Zucker, 2024). Effective teachers are able to differentiate instruction with both in-vivo scaffolding to match students’ responses in ways that support emergent bilinguals, as well as lesson planning that scaffolds comprehension by gradually increasing the demand of questions with repeated read-alouds (Blewitt et al., 2009; Fumero et al., 2024; Hadley et al., 2022).

There are many optional components in the DT curriculum. An example of optional vocabulary components are “nuts for words” activities that promote students’ word consciousness or interest in learning and using new words to express their ideas more precisely. Other optional components are peer conversation strategies (“turn and talk”), writing prompts (“draw and write”) that encourage a written response to that day’s guiding question, and small-group extension activities. These components are marked as optional in the materials and lesson guides. The next section explains that training explains required and optional components.

Intervention Procedures

Teachers were notified of their assigned condition and training date that matched their DT Scripted or DT Adaptive condition. We provided separate 6-hour trainings to each condition in the Fall of the school year. In this first, required training, teachers learned how to use the DT supplemental, read-aloud curriculum and were asked to deliver three read-aloud sessions per week. Teachers devoted most training time to watching models and practicing using the required, core components; however, trainers briefly explained optional components. (Differences in each condition’s components and training are detailed in the next section.). A second, optional, 6-hour training session was held in the Winter of each school year; this combined both conditions because it addressed practices that were consistent across conditions, such as extra practice scaffolding multi-turn conversations. After training, all teachers received access to optional readings and optional online modules they could use to deepen knowledge of how to provide effective language comprehension instruction.

Teachers received a kit that contained 10 units with 20 commercially-available children’s books (half narrative, half informational genres) that were repackaged to include the lesson guides as stickers placed in the text at the point of use. Read-alouds were introduced as “softly scripted” and were designed for use in whole-group settings over a 20-week period (see the schedule in the online Supplementary Materials [SM], Table SM1). Sample required components for each version are shown in Figure 1. (Additional scripted and adaptive materials are contrasted in Figures SM1 and SM2).

Figure 1

Comparison of Sample Guiding Question and Conversation Prompts (Week 5).

Each teacher was assigned to one of five coaches. The coaches were all females with experience in education-related fields (i.e., special education, curriculum and instruction, reading specialist, behavioral analyst, and professional leadership). They had several years of teaching experience (M = 15.20, SD = 9.09, range = 6–25 years) and training in the DT curricula. Three of the coaches identified as Hispanic and spoke Spanish. Coaches provided at least two in-class coaching sessions aimed at supporting teachers to deliver the curriculum with good fidelity, but up to four more sessions were delivered if teachers needed support in using required EBP. The coach used information from district/school leaders to help teachers integrate the DT supplemental curriculum with the schedule of their school’s core/comprehensive language arts curriculum. Teachers used various core curricula (e.g., Amplify’s Core Knowledge Language Arts, Savvas Learning Company’s MyView Literacy) and generally found it feasible to add the supplemental DT read-aloud to this schedule. Most teachers integrated DT read-alouds during the language arts portion of their day and some integrated DT into other parts of the day such as content area instruction (e.g., science or social studies). Teachers in bilingual classrooms usually used the English as a second language (ESL) block in their schedule to conduct the DT read-alouds in English. Coaches provided bilingual teachers with additional Spanish versions of the vocabulary picture cards and modeled how teachers could use this to bridge to a student’s home language. Bilingual coaches also modeled how to scaffold first in English and then switch to Spanish if emergent bilingual students were not able to respond correctly in English, likely due to limited English proficiency.

After the Winter training, coaches sent a series of 15 weekly text messages to intervention teachers designed to remind them of key components within the curriculum. Sample text messages include: “Explicit vocabulary instruction is one of the most powerful pieces of your read-aloud. Every week your vocabulary words follow the same routine: Say it, Define It, Describe It, Act It Out. Having students actively engage with the new vocabulary makes it easier for them to remember and use these new words in the future.”

Differences in adaptive procedures

Following recommendations by Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME; Wiltsey Stirman et al., 2019), modifications for the DT Adaptive version are detailed in online Supplement Table SM2. As stated, teachers in the DT Adaptive group were initially trained separately from the scripted teachers. Their 6-hour, Fall training included explanation of the same EBP and slightly abbreviated practice with feedback to use the scripted materials for the first 4 hours. Then, in the next 2 hours we trained teachers to develop their own lesson components to align with EBP and checklists that guided this work. Trainers provided teachers with feedback as they (a) selected vocabulary cards worth teaching their class, as this required picking six of 12 provided vocabulary cards that best aligned with their students’ language needs; (b) drafted child-friendly definitions on the back of picture vocabulary cards; (c) wrote open-ended, guiding questions that required more challenge across read-alouds; and (d) planned potential scaffolding prompts to add support or challenge, depending on the students response to the initial guiding question. We provided DT Adaptive teachers with a unit sequence that gradually increased teacher responsibility for planning lesson components (see SM1).

In reminder messages for the Adaptive DT group, we included a link to hints or excerpts of the scripted lessons they could use if they needed additional support as they wrote lesson components that were the learning focus of that week. We documented how often teachers in the adaptive condition accessed the scripted “hints,” which were simplified presentations of the scripted definitions, questions, or focal features of that week. In the final units, this included links to full lesson plans. Note that most (73%) adaptive teachers requested access to the scripted materials.

Measures

Teacher interview

At the end of the school year, coaches conducted videoconference exit interviews (n = 50, four missing) with intervention teachers they supported. We used a semi-structured interview approach and analyzed these questions: “Which curriculum were you assigned (scripted vs. adapted)? If you had a choice, would you prefer the same curriculum or the other version and why?” Two research assistants coded and verified teachers’ preferred condition and whether that matched the teachers’ randomly assigned condition. Our qualitative coding of the reasons for their preference included multiple steps detailed in online Table SM3 that relied on codes adapted from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al., 2022). The CFIR views the innovation as the “thing” being implemented (i.e., DT curriculum) and considers various determinants that act as barriers or facilitators of implementation (e.g., design, trialability, adaptability, complexity, packaging). Teacher comments could receive multiple content codes with each code marked a positive valence for facilitators or a negative valence for barriers. This valence component was marked at ±1 for most comments; however, when a teacher’s wording indicated a strong influence on implementation a value of ±2 was applied. We reviewed each set of codes and revised until the three coders reached consensus (M = 85% agreement), with the first and second author advising, as needed. After using a consensus approach to finalize the codes, we used data reduction steps to identify the most salient themes. We also created matrices to examine potential patterns by grade level or language of instruction.

Teacher implementation perceptions survey

To measure teachers’ perceptions of implementation outcomes, we used an online survey at the end of the implementation school year. These included several items adapted from the Determinants of Implementation Behaviors Questionnaire (DIBQ; Huijg et al., 2014) that assess teachers’ perceptions of implementing the DT curricula using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) where negatively worded items were reverse scored before calculating averages. Thus, higher values indicate better implementation outcomes. Teachers in both intervention conditions responded to the same items across the four constructs below; see Table 1 for DIBQ descriptive statistics.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for All Implementation Outcomes

Variable/Max Score	Assigned Adaptive					Assigned Scripted
Variable/Max Score	n	Min	Max	M	SD	n	Min	Max	M	SD
Perceived Implementation Outcomes
Appropriateness^a/7	21	3.67	7.00	5.59	1.00	23	4.33	6.67	5.54	0.73
Feasibility^a/7	21	3.50	7.00	4.88	1.13	23	3.40	6.20	5.04	0.82
Acceptability^a/7	21	4.00	5.80	4.94	0.58	23	4.00	5.80	4.93	0.47
Usability^a/7	21	4.00	7.00	5.32	0.90	23	4.20	6.60	5.22	0.65
Fidelity of Implementation
Adherence^b/22	18	14.50	22.00	18.44	2.71	21	14.00	22.00	18.43	2.26
Dosage^c/22	22	6.00	22.00	15.09	3.58	22	2.00	21.00	15.00	4.28

Note. ^aTeacher implementation perceptions survey (DIBQ adapted from Huijg et al., 2014). ^bNumber of required lesson steps implemented. ^cNumber of books read to students.

Appropriateness

Three items measured the appropriateness of the DT approach to interactive read-alouds, including: “An important part of my job is to get all children to participate in classroom conversations.” and “Facilitating extended classroom conversations is one of my highest priorities each week.” The last appropriateness item—“When planning lessons, it is hard to decide which vocabulary words are worth teaching. (reverse scored)”—was likely to be a more salient issue in the adaptive condition that gradually required preparing child-friendly vocabulary definitions.

Feasibility

Five items measured feasibility of using the DT program in their classroom or school context such as: “Other subjects are much higher priority than vocabulary instruction when there is limited instructional time. (reverse scored)” or “I have a clear plan in my weekly schedule of when I will deliver Developing Talkers lessons.” One of these DT items was most relevant to the Adaptive DT condition that required more lesson preparation time: “I can count on my school to give me the time I need to plan and deliver effective language instruction.”

Acceptability

Five items measured acceptability of the EBP such as: “For me, teaching children new vocabulary is very interesting.” or “I feel tired or stressed after delivering all the steps in Developing Talkers lessons. (reverse scored).” One item was more relevant in the Adaptive DT group that was expected to write some of their own definitions to use with provided picture vocabulary cards: “When I try to provide child-friendly definitions of sophisticated vocabulary, I feel stressed. (reverse scored)”

Usability

Five items measured usability of the DT curriculum such as: “I received enough training and support to deliver Developing Talkers lessons well.” or “It is hard to decide which scaffolding prompt to use in Developing Talkers. (reverse scored)” One item was most relevant to the Adaptive DT group at the stages when they were planning their own lesson questions, but could access provided hints: “When planning lessons, it is hard to know if I am preparing good listening comprehension questions. (reverse scored)”

Dosage: Read-aloud survey logs

To measure dosage, we asked teachers to report which of the 22 provided books they read aloud to their students. This was collected via short, online teacher surveys or in the teacher exit interview, if there were missing survey data. We calculated a count of books used as well as proportion of the total intended books across all units.

Adherence observations

To document adherence of lesson delivery, coaches videotaped 85 DT classroom read-aloud sessions. The goal was to capture multiple videos for each of the 54 teachers; however, due to scheduling challenges only one video was recorded for eight teachers. Thus, we calculated the average adherence score across all available observations. Teacher videos were coded by trained research assistants to assess adherence, defined as the number of required DT lesson steps implemented (1 = implemented, 0 = skipped) with a max of 22 points. More information on the adherence coding variables and training process is in online Table SM4. After completing reliability measures and double-coding 10% of the videos, research assistants achieved an average reliability of 92% (range = 90% to 96%).

Teacher knowledge survey

We measured early childhood teachers’ knowledge of effective instructional strategies to support language development with the Teachers’ Acquired Language Knowledge (TALK) measure (Phillips, Oliver et al., 2020). Although this has been validated with preschool teachers, we worked with the measure developer (June and July 2019, personal communication with B. Phillips) to select items that would extend upward to kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers. For example, an item related to explicit vocabulary instruction asked “Which of the following is the best student friendly definition for ‘edible’?” where the correct multiple choice response was the first option:1 = “Edible means something that’s safe to eat.”, 2 = “Edible means food.”, 3 = “Edible means things we chew.”, 4 = “Edible means able to be consumed.” Another sample item asked teachers about questions during read-alouds: “During shared book reading the educator asks, ‘What do you think will happen next?’ This is an example of ________.” where the correct response to fill in the blank was the second choice amongst four options: 1 = A literal question; 2 = An inferential question; 3 = An expansion; 4 = A responsive comment. We administered this at baseline using an online survey. Descriptive statistics are in Table SM5

Read-aloud observations

At pretest, we asked teachers to read aloud an unfamiliar text to their class so we could observe teachers’ skills in using key EBP during this common classroom activity. We used the Systematic Assessment of Book Reading (SABR; Pentimonti et al., 2021), which measures teachers’ extra-textual talk during read-alouds. We used the SABR narrative book called The Kingdom of Friends (see Pentimonti et al., 2021) that contains many academic vocabulary words and complex social situations that require inferencing and reasoning. This book contains no DT scripting/components and was unfamiliar to all teachers. Before this observation, teachers received a text overview and screenshots from a few pages of the book, but we explained that we wanted to observe their interactions with minimal time to prepare so that all teachers had equal exposure to the book. Observations were typically scheduled in the morning, during the language arts block or other time in the classroom daily schedule that included whole-group instruction. During this classroom observation, trained research staff scored the presence of three EBP in real-time: (a) vocabulary elaborations, defined as teacher talk asking for or providing a word’s definition, elaborating on word meaning, and promoting dramatization of the book or other pretend role play; (b) Wh-questions, including interrogative sentences that contain the word “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” or “which”; and (c) Why/How questions, including interrogative sentences that contain the word “why” or “how.” These three EBP were summed to create a total score. The training for staff included a 3-hour orientation to the coding system, practice coding from video-recorded, master-coded observations to simulate the live observation protocol, and live coding practice with an experienced coder and feedback. To be considered reliable on the SABR, observers demonstrated 80% agreement during at least two observations with at least one being a live observation. Across cohorts, we also monitored drift by having all coders meet reliability on a new video-recorded and master-coded observation. Descriptive statistics are in Table SM5.

Analysis

We conducted tests of baseline equivalence to assess similarity between teachers randomly assigned to intervention conditions on the teacher knowledge survey (TALK) and teachers’ EBP skills demonstrated in extra-textual talk of a read-aloud (SABR), as well as between different grades and language of instruction. For tests of baseline equivalence between language of instruction, teachers who reported using only English and those who reported using mostly English were grouped together because only four teachers reported using mostly English. Our analyses revealed no significant differences across any of the pretest variables included in this study, indicating comparable baseline characteristics across groups. We used descriptive statistics to determine teachers’ curriculum preference and alignment with assignment (RQ1). To analyze qualitative data in teachers’ exit interviews we adapted CFIR codes to identify determinants that included barriers (−1/−2 valence) or facilitators (+1/+2 valence; RQ2). We used linear regression models to determine if teachers’ assigned intervention condition or preference predicted their implementation outcomes (acceptability, usability, feasibility, appropriateness; RQ3) and fidelity outcomes (adherence, dosage; RQ4). To investigate if teacher pretest knowledge and skills were related to implementation and fidelity outcomes (RQ5), we added measures of pretest knowledge and skills into the models; we excluded five teachers from this analysis because they completed the knowledge measure after participating in training. Pairwise deletion was used for all analyses because of varying missing data across measures.

Results

RQ1: Which curriculum version—scripted or adaptive—did teachers prefer?

During exit interviews, 49 teachers indicated a curriculum preference. The vast majority of teachers (n = 43, 87.76%) indicated that they preferred the scripted curriculum and only six teachers indicated that they preferred the adaptive curriculum (12.24%). However, this did vary by assigned condition; 100% of the teachers assigned to the scripted condition preferred the scripted curriculum, but only 75% of teachers assigned to the adaptive condition preferred the scripted curriculum (see online Supplemental Table SM6).

RQ2: What were key determinants of teachers’ preference for scripted or adaptive?

We qualitatively analyzed teachers’ exit interviews to understand determinants of their preference for scripted or adaptive versions of the DT curriculum. Table 2 summarizes the most salient themes for each curriculum version (a count of all qualitative codes, including low occurrence codes is in Table SM7). There were four key determinants of teachers’ preference for DT Scripted including only positive features: (a) Script Usability – this theme referred to the ease of using the script with comments such as, “It was already prepared for us. So it was just basically grab the book, go over it and then read what’s there.” (b) Script Efficiency – This topic included references to time constraints such as this response: “I would prefer a scripted and the reason is because we’re so much loaded with a lot of work already.” (c) Sufficient Adaptability – This issue included references to the level of flexibility to modify the script such as this comment: “When I saw how yours were scripted, I think that that was a workable solution for a teacher because it it gives you . . . some guide but then you’re also using your own teaching.” (d) Early Career Fit – there were several teachers who expressed the idea that new teachers benefit from scripts as a guide, such as this first year teacher: “I think for me, because it’s my first year and I’m still getting used to how my district is run, so scripted was very appropriate for me.”

Table 2

Summary of Determinants of DT Scripted or DT Adaptive Preference

Determinants	Frequency	Sample quotes (Teacher ID)
Scripted Version
+1 Script simple, easy to understand and use	n = 18	“It was so easy for me to go grab those two cards. Look at it and go. . . . I probably never would have finished the [adaptive] program.” (2075)
+1 Script is efficient	n = 14	“It tells you everything you need to say and how to say it. . . . I don’t have to search for definitions of words and make them kid friendly . . . it’s already there.” (2044)
+1 Sufficient adaptability of “softly scripted”	n = 10	“I adapted it anyway because I added in things from like our reading curriculum that we needed to hit as well.” (2016)
+1 Script fits less experienced teachers	n = 3	“If I were an experienced teacher, it would be adapted, but . . . I had not been in a classroom. I literally went from my office to here, so it’s a [useful] model.” (2050)
Adaptive Version
+1 Tailoring to student needs	n = 8	“I like [adaptive] and how I can relate to the kids. . . . I think you really need that and especially for a couple of my English learners.” (2069)
−1 Insufficient feedback or support for adaptive lesson planning	n = 5	“I’m thinking and like trying to figure it out. . . . I don’t know what to do.” (2025)
+1 Promotes teacher learning or reflection	n = 4	“I like the challenge . . . the adaptive [version] got me thinking. OK. So like on this spot, even the like scaffolding up and down. So it got me thinking. So I like that part because if the scripted everything’s given to you. But I like that [scripted] too. But I think the script is really, really good.” (2053)
−1 Insufficient time for adaptive lesson planning	n = 4	“I promise you I would never have time to get to it because we have so much. I’m on so many committees. . . . I was tutoring. . . . I’m a single parent.” (2075)

Note. Barriers marked with negative typical valence (−1 or −2). Facilitators marked with typical positive valence (+1, +2).

The determinants of attitudes towards DT Adaptive included four themes. The first two were positive themes: (a) Tailoring for Students – a key theme was that adaptive promoted productive tailoring to fit their students’ levels of understanding or needs like this response:

My definition might change on a year-to-year basis depending on what [students] I have in front of me. So, I like the adaptive version better because it lets me think like ‘how do my students think? How can I simplify this definition for them?’

(b) Teacher Learning – some teachers referred to ideas that an educative curriculum promoted their learning or reflection on effective practices like this response:

I’m glad I got adaptive because with scripted I would not have done the practice—like you wouldn’t get the practice of doing all the work so like now I know how to do this with any book that I choose.

There were also two negative themes related to DT Adaptive: (c) Insufficient Feedback/Support – this issue related to teachers feeling that the DT Adaptive approach did not provide enough exemplars, feedback, or social supports to know they were making productive adaptations like this comment about wanting more models: “I’m kind of like the person that likes to learn by mimicking somebody first, so I really like the scripted. But I think like my second time around, I would probably like to write my own questions for it.” (d) Insufficient Time – this theme related to inadequate time to make planned modifications to lesson plans in the ways required by the DT Adaptive curriculum, like this comment: “RA [is] like a supplement, you know. So, I’m sorry, but I cannot spend a lot of time, I mean looking for vocabulary, you know.”

We also reviewed the themes by language of instruction and by grade level. When comparing mostly English to bilingual teachers’ determinants there were three noteworthy differences, which included some differences in valence where the wording moved beyond typical phrasing (+/−1) to include strong wording (+/−2): (a) efficiency in the scripted version (+1) was more salient for Spanish teachers (40.00%) compared to English teachers (23.26%); (b) the scripted version’s quality (+1 and +2) was only a determinant for English teachers (23.25%), whereas no Spanish teachers noted this code; (c) the adaptive version’s feedback was viewed as insufficient (−1) more so for Spanish teachers (20.00%) than English teachers (6.98%). In terms of grade level differences, there was only one noteworthy difference. That is, efficiency of lesson preparation time mattered more for Grade 1 teachers (50.00%) than kindergarten (6.90%).

RQ3: Did teachers’ perceived implementation outcomes differ by condition or preference?

At posttest, 44 teachers completed the DIBQ. Descriptively, both versions of DT curriculum resulted in good perceived implementation outcomes with averages at around 5 on a 7-point rating, where higher scores represent more positive perceptions for appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, usability; see the upper panel of Table 1. The results of the regression analyses are shown in Table 3; they show that teachers’ assigned curriculum conditions and preferences were not significantly related to their perceived implementation outcomes in any area—appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, usability—controlling for their pretest knowledge and skills.

Table 3

Final Linear Regression Models for Implementation Outcomes

Dependent Variable	Effect	Estimate	SE	DF	t value	p value
Perceived Implementation Outcomes
Appropriateness^a	Intercept	5.52	0.19	37	29.37	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive (vs. Scripted)	0.15	0.30	37	0.50	.6175
	Preferred Adaptive (vs. Scripted)	−0.03	0.44	37	−0.07	.9425
	TALK	0.01	0.14	37	0.05	.9632
	SABR	0.33	0.15	37	2.17	.0367*
Feasibility^a	Intercept	5.17	0.21	37	24.50	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive	−0.12	0.34	37	−0.36	.7245
	Preferred Adaptive	−0.41	0.50	37	−0.82	.4165
	TALK	0.11	0.16	37	0.68	.5021
	SABR	0.18	0.17	37	1.07	.2909
Acceptability^a	Intercept	4.94	0.11	37	44.27	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive	0.16	0.18	37	0.86	.3930
	Preferred Adaptive	−0.49	0.26	37	−1.88	.0679
	TALK	0.17	0.08	37	2.02	.0502
	SABR	−0.03	0.09	37	−0.36	.7240
Usability^a	Intercept	5.31	0.17	37	31.22	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive	−0.10	0.27	37	−0.36	.7241
	Preferred Adaptive	0.38	0.40	37	0.95	.3496
	TALK	0.02	0.13	37	0.14	.8922
	SABR	−0.01	0.14	37	−0.06	.9516
Observed Implementation Outcomes
Adherence^b	Intercept	18.35	0.53	33	34.35	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive	−0.26	0.89	33	−0.29	.7757
	Preferred Adaptive	1.12	1.26	33	0.89	.3790
	TALK	0.86	0.42	33	2.07	.0466*
	SABR	−0.29	0.44	33	−0.66	.5146
Dosage^c	Intercept	14.88	0.74	36	20.03	.0000
	Assigned Adaptive	0.61	1.18	36	0.52	.6092
	Preferred Adaptive	1.23	1.70	36	0.72	.4757
	TALK	1.43	0.54	36	2.68	.0111*
	SABR	0.77	0.59	36	1.31	.1997

Note. TALK = Teachers’ Acquired Language Knowledge measure; SABR = Systematic Assessment of Book Reading measure.

Teacher implementation perceptions survey (DIBQ adapted from Huijg et al., 2014); ^bNumber of required lesson steps implemented; ^cNumber of books read to students.

<.05.

RQ4: Did fidelity of implementation differ across the scripted and adaptive conditions?

The lower panel of Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for teachers’ observed fidelity of implementation by condition. These data indicate good adherence (> 80%) that was similar across conditions, but moderate dosage of implementation with about 68% of provided DT texts read aloud in both curriculum groups. Results of regression analysis in Table 3 indicate that assigned curriculum condition and preference were not significantly related to teachers’ adherence or dosage, controlling for pretest knowledge and skills.

RQ5: Did teacher knowledge and practice at baseline relate to implementation outcomes?

A correlation analysis suggested a significant positive relation between SABR and ratings of appropriateness (r = 0.32), as well as a significant positive relation between dosage and acceptability (r = 0.37). Both dosage (r = 0.39) and adherence (r = 0.38) were significantly correlated to TALK. The results of the regression analysis, accounting for both assigned and preferred condition are shown in Table 3. This shows that pretest TALK was significantly and positively related to adherence (B = 0.86, p = .046) and dosage (B = 1.43, p = .011). Additionally, the results suggest that pre-test skills (SABR) was significantly related to Appropriateness (B = 0.33, p = .036). As a robustness check, we also ran these models excluding the variable representing the preferred condition due to the collinearity with the assigned condition (i.e., all teachers assigned scripted, preferred scripted). The relations between these predictors and outcomes remained significant and in the same direction when the analysis was conducted with random assignment included and preference excluded from the model.

Discussion

This experimental study compared teacher-level implementation outcomes for scripted and adaptive versions of the DT language comprehension curriculum supplement. Findings demonstrate that kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers overwhelmingly preferred the scripted version because it was sufficiently adaptable and easy to implement with little preparation time. However, some teachers saw the benefit of adaptive approaches for tailoring to their students’ specific needs and to promote their own learning. Implementation outcomes were similar across these randomly assigned scripted and adaptive conditions, with some more positive outcomes for teachers who had higher baseline knowledge and skills. We discuss implications for curriculum developers, leaders who support curriculum implementation, and for teachers.

Key Findings and Determinants of Implementation Outcomes

A salient finding that aligns with the larger literature (e.g., Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Pak et al., 2020) was that, regardless of assigned curriculum approach, many teachers made modifications as they implemented the curriculum. Yet, teachers in our study emphasized that they had limited time to prepare planned, written lesson adaptations, so most modifications were made during instruction in response to students’ needs or to make the content more relevant for students. Across implementation science studies, time is a key determinant for implementing and sustaining a new innovation (Chambers et al., 2013; Lyon et al., 2021). In education, this aligns with prior research on curriculum implementation and scale up which suggests that effective adaptation requires contexts that include time and space to promote thoughtful reflection on adaptations to best address standards, students’ assessed needs, or background factors such as linguistic diversity of students (e.g., Cobanoglu et al., 2015; Neuman et al., 2015; Vaughn et al., 2022; Worthy et al., 2013).

A second important finding is that, to make confident adaptations, teachers wanted more feedback or support than they were offered with the DT Adaptive curriculum. This finding was also more salient for teachers in bilingual classrooms where teachers reported that the adaptive feedback was not sufficient to guide productive adaptations for their emergent bilingual students, perhaps due to variation in students’ language proficiencies (Fitton et al., 2018). Teacher interviews indicated that they were aware of and sometimes used the hints and scripted examples we provided as a simple form of feedback. We did not allow teachers in the same school building to collaborate or dialogue about their adaptive lesson planning because our random assignment was at the teacher level and this could lead to contamination across experimental conditions within schools. However, this decision likely limited the amount of social support and feedback that DT Adaptive teachers would normally receive in settings such as grade level planning meetings. In contrast, the Adaptive READS study by Kim et al. (2017) showed that, when grade level teams worked together with the intervention purveyor to implement adaptive approaches, it felt feasible for teachers and produced effective student outcomes. Thus, to realize the benefits of adaptive curriculum in ways that feel supportive to teachers, future approaches might consider more intensive or collaborative feedback approaches. Yet, given teachers’ time constraints, they will need efficient approaches to collaborate on planned adaptations.

The third key finding was that teachers with higher baseline knowledge and skills had several better implementation outcomes, even when controlling for assigned and preferred curriculum versions. Specifically, teachers with higher baseline knowledge scores had better observed fidelity of implementation in terms of DT lesson adherence and dosage of DT books implemented, and teachers with higher skills for using EBP in baseline read-aloud observations perceived higher appropriateness and fit of the DT curricula they were assigned. Appropriateness in implementation science refers to the perceived fit and compatibility of an innovation to address a particular need in a particular setting (E. Proctor et al., 2011; E. K. Proctor, 2020). In this study, the DT program sought to improve students’ language comprehension skills in two early elementary grades and in both English and bilingual instructional settings. This is consistent with other curriculum research that shows teachers of young children who have higher baseline skills experience greater readiness to implement and sustain innovations and EBP for supporting language comprehension (e.g., Bierman et al., 2013; Hadley et al., 2022). Research focused specifically on read-alouds also suggests that teachers with higher skills are better able to use this classroom activity to support their students’ language comprehension (e.g., Cabell et al., 2019). Further research is needed to understand how teachers’ years of experience relates to implementation, because some teachers in our study noted that scripting was better for less experienced teachers (e.g., Lim et al., 2018), but this does not consistently relate to implementation in other studies (e.g., Cobanoglu et al., 2015).

A minor but surprising finding was that although there are multiple challenges and criticisms of scripted curriculum in literature across preschool to Grade 12 (e.g., Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Vaughn et al., 2022), only one early elementary teacher in our sample expressed concerns about following a script because she feared it would be highly prescriptive. Over the past decade a softly scripted approach is common in both read-aloud studies (e.g., Bleses et al., 2018; Mashburn et al., 2016; Pentimonti et al., 2023) and other early childhood curriculum research (e.g., Bierman et al., 2013; Nesbitt & Farran, 2021). Thus, scripting may be viewed as more acceptable to teachers in these early grades, as they have exposure to scripted curricula that allow sufficient autonomy while also providing a useful lesson guide. Further research is needed to disentangle this possibility from other factors, such as different terminology used across time to promote productive adaptations (Parsons et al., 2018) and possible differences in making effective adaptations across grade levels (Neuman et al., 2021).

Implications for Developers and Educators

For curriculum developers, these findings suggest that early elementary teachers are comfortable with scripted approaches that value their professional capacities to deliver curricula in their own words, which aligns with other research (cf., Bleses et al., 2018; Vaughn et al., 2022). However, some teachers were interested in curricula that promote tailoring to their students’ language competencies. There may not be substantial costs or barriers to layering in some simple adaptive components, such as including extra vocabulary cards so that teachers can tailor instruction to the types of words their students’ most need to learn.

Like other promising approaches (e.g., Neuman et al., 2021), our training approach contrasted core “required” components that comprised EBP with strong evidence of effectiveness from optional components, which were components with promise, but limited evidence of effectiveness. This differs substantially from many commercial curriculum trainings and services that showcase the vast range of materials included in their products rather than detailing essential, evidence-based components (Schmoker, 2019). Implications of our findings are that, since teachers will make modifications to provided curricula (e.g., Cobanoglu et al., 2015), they are likely to benefit from information on which components should be delivered with good adherence (> 80%); likewise, purveyors of curricula and training can clarify which components might be deprioritized, if needed. Alternatively, district and school leaders may be able to achieve similar results of good adherence to core components by promoting a culture of thoughtful adaptations (Pak et al., 2020) or creating spaces for teachers to collaborate on curriculum modifications that are informed by current evidence (e.g., Kim et al., 2017). Implementation science suggests that these types of social processes are essential to sustaining EBP because it normalizes and embeds behaviors (Birken et al., 2020; Chambers et al., 2013).

Although we observed good adherence to lesson steps in this sample, the dosage of read-alouds delivered was lower in both conditions (about 68%) than our prior studies (73% to 97%). This suggests that any supplemental read-aloud curriculum may be challenging to layer onto the other district/school curricula and expectations. This and the collective findings informed revisions to our theory of change for the DT curriculum (available in supplemental Figure SM3) to suggest that teachers who have different needs and priorities are likely to find different curriculum features easier to implement, which aligns with and expands our past research (e.g., Zucker et al., 2019, 2021). For example, teachers with limited classroom experience or teachers with limited time may prefer a scripted curriculum (e.g., Clayback et al., 2023), whereas teachers who need to tailor instruction for diverse students (e.g., Carlo et al., 2004; Fumero et al., 2024) or teachers who are eager for continuous improvement to their practice (A. Crawford et al., 2021) may prefer an adaptive curriculum. Additionally, it is possible that teachers may have preferred the adaptive version if they had had the opportunity to use it, as the only teachers who preferred the adaptive were those who were randomly assigned to that curriculum version. Implications for other large-scale improvement efforts that include curricular innovations are that leaders need to empower teachers to enact curriculum approaches that fit their needs and context, while also explicitly balancing the need for adaptations and adherence to core components (e.g., Pak et al., 2020).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has multiple limitations, chief of which is the relatively small sample size. It is also possible that some lingering COVID-pandemic stressors may have skewed our findings. We only had two measures of potential predictors of teachers’ curriculum implementation (i.e., TALK, SABR), yet other variables, such as meta-cognition and beliefs, are linked to adaptive teaching (e.g., Parsons et al., 2018). In future, we will gather additional teacher-level outcomes, such as teacher beliefs, teacher knowledge transfer of EBP to other classroom activities, and child-level language comprehension outcomes (e.g., Crawford et al., 2021; Clayback et al., 2023). Future work will examine if the scripted or adaptive curriculum versions have differential impacts on student outcomes.

We also realized, in hindsight, that in exit interviews we could have provided teachers with more specific examples of the features of the alternate curriculum, which may have altered their preferences. Thus, our findings represent teachers’ general impressions of scripted versus adaptive approaches; however, these findings are likely still relevant given that our salient findings align with the larger literature. These initial, interim findings (Cohorts 12) provide descriptive insights into teachers as learners and the mechanisms that relate to the successful uptake of language support curricula. We will continue to report on these teacher preferences and outcomes when we have completed all cohorts of the study (e.g., see preliminary results in SM6a for cohorts 3–4 that align with the majority preference for scripted). In the new era of artificial intelligence (AI), it is unclear how these technologies will automate or reduce the burden of lesson preparation in ways that will alter curriculum preferences and implementation. Future research should examine the extent to which AI-supported technologies could make adaptive curricula easier to implement (cf. Phillips, Pane et al., 2020). Future studies of these DT approaches should also include feedback approaches that are more supportive or allow for grade-level planning.

Conclusion

Teachers of young children are comfortable with scripted lesson guides for classroom activities like read-alouds. Yet, teachers’ implementation outcomes were similar across randomly assigned scripted and adaptive conditions of this read-aloud curriculum. Thus, future research should continue to explicate the conditions that lead to productive curriculum adaptations. This work suggests that curriculum developers should continue to provide quality scripts as guides, while considering ways to promote adaptations that allow teachers to efficiently tailor lessons to their students’ diverse learning needs.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251361052 – Supplemental material for Initial Implementation Outcomes for Scripted and Adaptive Versions of the Developing Talkers Read-Aloud Curricula for Kindergarten and Grade 1 Teachers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ero-10.1177_23328584251361052 for Initial Implementation Outcomes for Scripted and Adaptive Versions of the Developing Talkers Read-Aloud Curricula for Kindergarten and Grade 1 Teachers by Tricia A. Zucker, Michael P. Mesa, Keisey Fumero, Rebecca Duron, Sonia Q. Cabell, Jessica Logan and Yoonkyung Oh in AERA Open

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to the teachers and students who took part in this study. We are grateful to Karina Molina and Ashley Love for coordinating this study and these research staff who supported this work: Wei Wu, Ashley Love, Lauren Topek, Kimberly Venegas, Lisa Meeks, Kiara Araujo, Diana Davila, Samantha Delafuente Rodriguez, Alena Raza, Fatima Bassham, Elise DuBois, and Julia Delano.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Tricia Zucker and UTHealth received a research grant from Scholastic Inc. and licensed the Developing Talkers language module to Scholastic Inc. Based on these royalties and other compensation Tricia A. Zucker and Michael P. Mesa receive from Scholastic Inc., these authors have potential conflicts of interests to declare.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under award number R305A190065 to UTHealth. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of IES.

Open Practices

The data and analysis files for this article can be found in the LDBase open science repository ().

ORCID iDs

Tricia A. Zucker

Michael P. Mesa

Sonia Q. Cabell

Yoonkyung Oh

Note. This manuscript was accepted under the editorship of Dr. Kara Finnigan.

Authors

TRICIA A. ZUCKER is a former classroom teacher and professor at Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Her research supports educators and parents to improve language, literacy, and cognitive development of students with or at risk for learning difficulties.

MICHAEL P. MESA, PhD, is an assistant professor at Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. His research focuses on factors that support young children’s learning and development, particularly in the context of small-group instruction.

KEISEY FUMERO, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Her research supports educators to improve language and literacy instruction with a focus on bilingual students.

REBECCA DURON is a research assistant at Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Her research focuses on K-5 education, community care, and social work practices.

SONIA Q. CABELL, PhD, is a professor at Florida State University. Her research focuses on language and literacy instruction, with the goal of preventing reading difficulties in young children.

JESSICA LOGAN is an associate professor at Vanderbilt University. Her research focuses on the methods that education and developmental scientists use to study individual differences in how children learn.

YOONKYUNG OH, PhD, is an associate professor at Children’s Learning Institute at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Her research focuses on understanding and promoting social and emotional competence among children and educators.

References

Assel

M. A.

Landry

S. H.

Swank

P. R.

Gunnewig

(2007). An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 20, 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9039-5

Baker

D. L.

Santoro

Biancarosa

Baker

S. K.

Fien

Otterstedt

(2020). Effects of a read aloud intervention on first grade student vocabulary, listening comprehension, and language proficiency. Reading and Writing, 33, 2697–2724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10060-2

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

Kucan

(2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.

Bierman

K. L.

Sanford DeRousie

R. M.

Heinrichs

Domitrovich

C. E.

Greenberg

M. T.

Gill

(2013). Sustaining high-quality teaching and evidence-based curricula: Follow-up assessment of teachers in the REDI project. Early Education & Development, 24(8), 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.755457

Birken

S. A.

Haines

E. R.

Hwang

Chambers

D. A.

Bunger

A. C.

Nilsen

(2020). Advancing understanding and identifying strategies for sustaining evidence-based practices: A review of reviews. Implementation Science, 15(1), 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01040-9

Bleses

Højen

Justice

L. M.

Dale

P. S.

Dybdal

Piasta

S. B.

Markussen-Brown

Clausen

Haghish

E. F.

(2018). The effectiveness of a large-scale language and preliteracy intervention: The SPELL randomized controlled trial in Denmark. Child Development, 89(4), e342–e363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12859

Blewitt

Rump

K. M.

Shealy

S. E.

Cook

S. A.

(2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013844

Cabell

S. Q.

Zucker

T. A.

(2024). Using strive-for-five conversations to strengthen language comprehension in preschool through grade one. The Reading Teacher, 74(4) 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2266

Cabell

S. Q.

Zucker

T. A.

DeCoster

Melo

Forston

Hamre

(2019). Prekindergarten interactive book reading quality and children’s language and literacy development: Classroom organization as a moderator. Early Education and Development, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1514845

10.

Carlo

M. S.

August

McLaughlin

Snow

C. E.

Dressler

Lippman

D. N.

Lively

T. J.

White

C. E.

(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3

11.

Chambers

D. A.

Glasgow

R. E.

Stange

K. C.

(2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117

12.

Clayback

K. A.

Williford

A. P.

Vitiello

V. E.

(2023). Identifying teacher beliefs and experiences associated with curriculum implementation fidelity in early childhood education. Prevention Science, 24(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01414-z

13.

Cobanoglu

Capa-Aydin

(2015). When early childhood teachers close the door: Self-reported fidelity to a mandated curriculum and teacher beliefs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 33, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.07.001

14.

Crawford

Varghese

Hsu

H. Y.

Zucker

Landry

Assel

Monsegue-Bailey

Bhavsar

(2021). A comparative analysis of instructional coaching approaches: Face-to-face versus remote coaching in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1609. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000691

15.

Crawford

A. C.

Zucker

T. A.

Williams

J. M.

Bhavsar

Landry

S. H.

(2013). Initial validation of the prekindergarten Classroom Observation Tool and goal setting system for data-based coaching. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 277. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000033

16.

Davis

E. A.

Krajcik

J. S.

(2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003

17.

Damschroder

L. J.

Reardon

C. M.

Widerquist

M. A. O.

Lowery

The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0

18.

Datnow

Castellano

(2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775

19.

Deshmukh

R. S.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Zucker

T. A.

Curry

(2022). Teachers’ use of scaffolds within conversations during shared book reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(1), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00020

20.

Deshmukh

R. S.

Zucker

T. A.

Tambyraja

S. R.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Bowles

R. P.

Justice

L. M.

(2019). Teachers’ use of questions during shared book reading: Relations to child responses. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.006

21.

Dowdall

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Murray

Gardner

Hartford

Cooper

P. J.

(2019). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 91(2), e383–e399. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225

22.

Fitton

McIlraith

A. L.

Wood

C. L.

(2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 712–751. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318790909

23.

Fumero

Wood

Phillips

(2024). Supportive language strategies for preschool dual language learners: Associations with early language outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 67, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.12.002

24.

Goldenberg

(2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340

25.

Gonzalez

J. E.

Kim

Anderson

Pollard-Durodola

(2024). The effects of a science and social studies content rich shared reading intervention on the vocabulary learning of preschool dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 66, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.08.011

26.

Guo

Dynia

J. M.

Logan

J. A.

Justice

L. M.

Breit-Smith

Kaderavek

J. N.

(2016). Fidelity of implementation for an early-literacy intervention: Dimensionality and contribution to children’s intervention outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.06.001

27.

Hadley

E. B.

Barnes

E. M.

Wiernik

B. M.

Raghavan

(2022). A meta-analysis of teacher language practices in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 59, 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.12.002

28.

Huijg

J. M.

Gebhardt

W. A.

Dusseldorp

Verheijden

M. W.

van der Zouwe

Middelkoop

B. J.

Crone

M. R.

(2014). Measuring determinants of implementation behavior: Psychometric properties of a questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-33

29.

Justice

L. M.

Jiang

(2023). Language is the basis of skilled reading comprehension. In Cabell

S. Q.

Neuman

S. B.

Terry

N. P.

(Eds.), Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy (pp. 131–138). Guilford.

30.

Kim

J. S.

Burkhauser

M. A.

Quinn

D. M.

Guryan

Kingston

H. C.

Aleman

(2017). Effectiveness of structured teacher adaptations to an evidence-based summer literacy program. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.178

31.

Kleeck

A. V.

(2008). Providing preschool foundations for later reading comprehension: The importance of and ideas for targeting inferencing in storybook-sharing interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 45(7), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20314

32.

Landry

S. H.

Zucker

T. A.

Montroy

J. J.

Hsu

H. Y.

Assel

M. A.

Varghese

Crawford

A. D.

Feil

E. G.

(2021). Replication of combined school readiness interventions for teachers and parents of head start pre-kindergarteners using remote delivery. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.007

33.

Lim

Roberts-Harris

Kim

H. J.

(2018). Preservice teachers’ learning paths of classroom discourse through scripting. In Zazkis

Herbst

(Eds.), Scripting approaches in mathematics education (pp. 293–319). Springer.

34.

Lonigan

C. J.

Phillips

B. M.

Clancy

J. L.

Landry

S. H.

Swank

P. R.

Assel

Taylor

H. B.

Klein

Starkey

Domitrovich

C. E.

Eisenberg

de Villiers

Barnes

, & School Readiness Consortium. (2015). Impacts of a comprehensive school readiness curriculum for preschool children at risk for educational difficulties. Child Development, 86(6), 1773–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12460

35.

Lyon

A. R.

Koerner

(2016). User-centered design for psychosocial intervention development and implementation. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12154

36.

Lyon

A. R.

Pullmann

M. D.

Jacobson

Osterhage

Al Achkar

Renn

B. N.

Munson

S. A.

Areán

P. A.

(2021). Assessing the usability of complex psychosocial interventions: The Intervention Usability Scale. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489520987828

37.

Mashburn

Justice

L. M.

McGinty

Slocum

(2016). The impacts of a scalable intervention on the language and literacy development of rural pre-kindergartners. Applied Developmental Science, 20(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1051622

38.

Mol

S. E.

Bus

A. G.

De Jong

M. T.

(2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 979–1007.e3e https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309332561

39.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Common core of data: Public school data for the 2022–2023 school year. U.S. Department of Education.

40.

Neuman

S. B.

Pinkham

Kaefer

(2015). Supporting vocabulary teaching and learning in prekindergarten: The role of educative curriculum materials. Early Education and Development, 26(7), 988–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1004517

41.

Neuman

S. B.

Samudra

Danielson

(2021). Effectiveness of scaling up a vocabulary intervention for low-income children, pre-K through first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 121(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/712492

42.

Nesbitt

K. T.

Farran

D. C.

(2021). Effects of prekindergarten curricula: Tools of the Mind as a case study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 86(1), 7–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12425

43.

Pak

Polikoff

M. S.

Desimone

L. M.

Saldívar García

(2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828

44.

Parsons

S. A.

Vaughn

Scales

R. Q.

Gallagher

M. A.

Parsons

A. W.

Davis

S. G.

Pierczynski

Allen

(2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198

45.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Bos

Holod

(2023, March). TeacherRead: Supporting New York City PreK teachers in their shared book reading practice [Paper presentation]. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in Salt Lake City, UT.

46.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Bowles

R. P.

Zucker

T. A.

Tambyraja

S. R.

Justice

L. M.

(2021). Development and validation of the Systematic Assessment of Book Reading (SABR-2.2). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.11.007

47.

Phillips

B. M.

Oliver

Tabulda

Wood

Funari

(2020). Preschool teachers’ language and vocabulary knowledge: Development and predictive associations for a new measure. Dyslexia, 26(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1644

48.

Phillips

Pane

J. F.

Reumann-Moore

Shenbanjo

(2020). Implementing an adaptive intelligent tutoring system as an instructional supplement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1409–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09745-w

49.

Phillips

B. M.

Ingrole

S. A.

Burris

P. W.

Tabulda

(2019). Investigating predictors of fidelity of implementation for a preschool vocabulary and language curriculum. In Saracho

O. N.

(Ed.), Research in Young children’s literacy and language development (pp. 244–255). Routledge.

50.

Pollard-Durodola

S. D.

Gonzalez

J. E.

Saenz

Resendez

Kwok

Zhu

Davis

(2018). The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Education and Development, 29(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1393738

51.

Pommeranz

Broekens

Wiggers

Brinkman

W. P.

Jonker

C. M.

(2012). Designing interfaces for explicit preference elicitation: A user-centered investigation of preference representation and elicitation process. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22, 357–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9116-6

52.

Proctor

Silmere

Raghavan

Hovmand

Aarons

Bunger

Griffey

Hensley

(2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

53.

Proctor

E. K.

(2020). Outcomes. In Nilsen

Birken

S. A.

(Eds.) Handbook on implementation science (pp. 276–290). Edward Elgar Publishing.

54.

Rosinsky

Murray

D. W.

Nagle

Boyd

Shaw

Supplee

Putnam

(2022). A review of human-centered design in human services. Human Centered Design for Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE-HCD-State-of-Field.pdf

55.

Schmoker

(2019, February). The problem with literacy programs. Education Week: Opinion. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-the-problem-with-literacy-programs/2019/02

56.

Silverman

R. D.

Johnson

Keane

Khanna

(2020). Beyond decoding: A meta-analysis of the effects of language comprehension interventions on K–5 students’ language and literacy outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S207–S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.346

57.

Slavin

R. E.

Madden

N. A.

(2001). One million children: Success for All. Corwin Press.

58.

Thierry

K. L.

Vincent

R. L.

Norris

(2022). Teacher-level predictors of the fidelity of implementation of a social-emotional learning curriculum. Early Education and Development, 33(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1849896

59.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse early childhood education intervention report: Dialogic Reading. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_Dialogic_Reading_020807.pdf

60.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2022). National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1992–2022 Reading Assessments. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/

61.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2015). What Works Clearinghouse early childhood education intervention report: Shared book reading. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_sharedbook_041415.pdf

62.

Van Velsen

Van Der Geest

Klaassen

Steehouder

. (2008). User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: A literature review. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23(3), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269888908001379

63.

Vaughn

Parsons

S. A.

Gallagher

M. A.

(2022). Challenging scripted curricula with adaptive teaching. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x211065752

64.

Wasik

B. A.

Hindman

A. H.

(2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.0

65.

Wiltsey Stirman

Baumann

A. A.

Miller

C. J

. (2019). The FRAME: An expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 14, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y

66.

Worthy

Durán

Hikida

Pruitt

Peterson

(2013). Spaces for dynamic bilingualism in read-aloud discussions: Developing and strengthening bilingual and academic skills. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.845622

67.

Zucker

T. A.

Cabell

S. Q.

Wang

(2020). Asking questions is just the first step: Using upward and downward scaffolds. The Reading Teacher, 74(3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1943

68.

Zucker

T. A.

Cabell

S. Q.

Petscher

Mui

Landry

S. H.

Tock

(2021b). Teaching together: Pilot study of a tiered language and literacy intervention with head start teachers and linguistically diverse families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.001

69.

Zucker

T. A.

Cabell

S. Q.

Pico

D. L.

(2021). Going nuts for words: Recommendations for teaching young students academic vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 74(5), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1967

70.

Zucker

T. A.

Carlo

M. S.

Landry

S. H.

Masood-Saleem

S. S.

Williams

J. M.

Bhavsar

(2019). Iterative design and pilot testing of the Developing Talkers tiered academic language curriculum for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(2), 274–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1519623

71.

Zucker

T. A.

Carlo

M. S.

Montroy

J. J.

Landry

S. H.

(2021a). Pilot test of the Hablemos Juntos Tier 2 academic language curriculum for Spanish-speaking preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.11.009

72.

Zucker

T. A.

Jacobs

Cabell

S. Q.

(2021c). Exploring barriers to early childhood teachers’ implementation of a supplemental academic language curriculum. Early Education and Development, 32(8), 1194–1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1839288

73.

Zucker

T. A.

Solari

E. J.

Landry

S. H.

Swank

P. R.

(2013). Effects of a brief tiered language intervention for prekindergartners at risk. Early Education & Development, 24(3), 366–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.664763

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.05 MB